Opinion
Case No.: 3:17-cv-01316-BEN-AGS
08-16-2017
MICHAEL SEAN BROZOVIC, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION;
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND
(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[Docket Nos. 16, 17, 23]
Plaintiff Michael Sean Brozovic filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 16), and Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition to Plaintiff's motion. (Docket Nos. 17, 18.) Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendant's cross-motion.
On July 26, 2017, Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 23.) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment contends that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") committed reversible error in rejecting his symptom testimony and failing to adequately explain the reason for the rejection. Magistrate Judge Schopler found that that the ALJ sufficiently explained why Plaintiff's testimony was not credible. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Schopler found that, of the six reasons the ALJ relied on to support the findings on Plaintiff's credibility, only one is invalid, and the remaining five reasons are specific, clear, convincing, and supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Carmickle v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) ("So long as there remains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's conclusions on credibility and the error does not negate the validity of the ALJ's ultimate credibility conclusion, such is deemed harmless and does not warrant reversal.").
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by August 9, 2017. (Docket No. 23.) Neither party has filed any objections. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 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 findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.
The Court need not conduct de novo review given the absence of objections. Nevertheless, the Court has considered the parties' arguments and fully ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 16, 2017
/s/_________
Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge