Andrews v. Saul ( 2020 )

1 3 IN rn Ph oF TER 4 . . NOV i 2 2020 | . DEPUTY 6 □□ FP a =: 8 || UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA _ 11 |} ANDREA A., - Case No.: 3:19-cv-01873-BEN-MDD □ Plaintiff, 12 ue? | ORDER: 13 |j Vv. vo □□ (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 ANDREW SAUL, Acting Commissioner RECOMMENDATION; 15 of Social Security, . . ) Defendant. (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY | 17 JUDGMENT; AND 18 (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 19 CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY oe | JUDGMENT 20 21 . [ECF Nos. 14, 15, and 18] □ 22], □□ 23 On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff. Andrea A. (“Plaintiff”)! filed this action for 24 |Ijudicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for 25 || disability insurance benefits. ECF No. i. 26 27 : 08 I In accordance with S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(e)(6)(b), which provides that “[o]pinions || by the court in these [Social Security cases] will refer to any non-government parties by . -l- . □ 1 On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to 4: 2 U.S.C. section 405(g). ECF No. 14. On April 2, 2020, Defendant Andrew Saul 3 ||Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”) filed a cross-motion for □□□□□□ 4 ||judgment and opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 15, 16 5 April 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendant’s Opposition to her motion fo 6 ||summary judgment. ECF No. 17. 7 On August 25, 2020, Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin issued a thoughtful an 8 thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff ? motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgmen Magistrate Judge Dembin found the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) provided specific clear, and convincing reasons to reject Plaintiff's subjective allegations of impairment an 12 record supports the ALJ’s findings. Specifically, after his careful review of th 13 obj ective medical evidence, he concluded that, contrary to Plaintiff's arguments advance 14 Vin support of Motion for Summary Judgment, (1) the objective medical evidence supporte 13 ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff's mental impairments were non-severe; (2) the ALJ did n 16 err in giving the opinion of Mark Dilger, M.D., a non-examining physician, less weigh 17 || because his opinion was not supported by the overall record, which included an addition. 18 |itwo years of records and showed only mild mental limitations; (3) in light of tk 19 inconsistencies between Dr. Reddy’s less than sedentary exertional capacity outlined in D 20 |! Reddy’s opinion, and Plaintiff's more benign treatment history, the ALJ’s decision to gis 2! Reddy “less weight” was based on specific and legitimate reasons supported b 22 || substantial evidence; and (4) the ALJ fulfilled his duty to develop the record when he (: 23 || sent Plaintiff a pre-hearing notice instructing her to submit all evidence known to her th: 24 |l\related to her disability claim, (b) advised her of her right to request a subpoena f 25 || additional records, and (c) acceded to Plaintiff's counsel’s request to hold the record ope 26 __ 27 . 28 using only their first name and last initial,” the Court has redacted Plaintiffs last name and requests that the parties do so as well in any future filings. 2. | following the administrative hearing to allow Plaintiff to submit additional medical 2 records. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Dembin concluded the ALJ findings were based 3 on objective medical evidence, the conservative nature of Plaintiff's treatments, and 4 || medical opinions from treating, consulting, and examining physicians. These factors 5 generally did not support Plaintiff's subjective claims of disability. Objections to the 6 Report and Recommendation were due by September 8, 2020. Neither party has filed any 7 llobtections- - ~- - 7 TT 8 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 9 magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 10 636(6)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 1 recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b)(3). However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s 13 findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United 14 || States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Wang v. 15 Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute 16 requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties 17 || themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-T. apia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 18 The Court need not conduct de novo review given the absence of objections. The 19 |] Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the 20 ||Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s final decision is 23 AFFIRMED. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordip gly and terminate the case. 24 ITISSOORDERED. Lj 25 || DATED: November 2020 Mb tL, ‘How. ROGER’ NITEZ □ United States Distyiét Judge 28 ||