Alva v. Saul, 2:19-cv-00086 WBS CKD. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20200312925
Visitors: 20
Filed: Mar. 11, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 11, 2020
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying an application for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act ("Act"). On January 22, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objectio
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying an application for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act ("Act"). On January 22, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objection..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying an application for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act ("Act").
On January 22, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections. The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Notably, among other things, the administrative law judge set forth specific, legitimate reasons, based on substantial evidence in the record, for rejecting the opinion of plaintiff's treating physician, "setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and making findings." See, e.g., Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Magallenes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989) (other citation omitted).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDRED that:
1. The January 22, 2020 findings and recommendations are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 8) is denied;
3. The Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 12) be granted; and
4. Judgment is entered for the Commissioner.
Source: Leagle
