Summary
noting that where the doctor's verbiage suggests "recommendations, as opposed to imperatives," they "are neither diagnoses nor statements of plaintiff's RFC"
Summary of this case from Celeste M. v. SaulOpinion
No. 6:12-cv-01846-SU
01-09-2014
JUAN VILLALOBOS, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
MOSMAN, J.,
Plaintiff Juan Villalobos filed a complaint [1] seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Judge Sullivan recommended [14] that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. Neither party filed objections.
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. I am not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge; instead, I retain responsibility for making the final determination. I am required to review de novo those portions of the report or any specified findings or recommendations within it to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, I am not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether objections have been filed, in either case I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Sullivan's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [14] as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge