1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

Case No. 2:22-cv-08077-FWS-MRW 11

12 OLGA A.,1 ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,

13 CONCLUSIONS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [34]

15 v. AND OVERRULING OBJECTION [35]

16

MARTIN O’MALLEY,

17 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

18

19 Defendant. 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 1 Partially redacted in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) 27 and the recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case 28 Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States. 1 I. Introduction and Relevant Procedural History

2 Before the court is the Magistrate Judge’s June 25, 2024, Report and 3 Recommendation (“Report and Recommendation”), (Dkt. 34), regarding the 4 “Complaint – Social Security Appeal,” (Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”), filed by Plaintiff Olga 5 A. (“Plaintiff”). Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the 6 court adopts the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge, including 7 each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein. 8 On November 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Complaint. (Dkt. 1.) On June 28, 9 2023, Defendant Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”),2 10 filed an answer to the Complaint. (Dkt. 17.) On June 28, 2023, Defendant filed the 11 Certified Administrative Record. (Dkt. 18.) On February 1, 2024, Plaintiff and 12 Defendant filed the Joint Stipulation on Behalf of Both Parties (“Joint Stipulation”), 13 that included the case’s factual background, a statement of disputed issues, and the relief 14 requested by the respective parties. (Dkt. 30.) More specifically, in the Joint 15 Stipulation, Plaintiff seeks the following relief: 16 17 [T]his Court should remand this case in accordance with the fourth sentence of 18 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with instructions to: (1) find that Plaintiff’s conversion 19 disorder lasted twelve months and assess the impact of this impairment on her 20 ability to work; (2) reassess the severity of Plaintiff’s mental impairments; 21 (3) reassess Plaintiff’s RFC; (4) reassess Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms; and 22 (5) issue a new decision. 23 24 25

26 2 During the earlier stages of the case, including at the time of the filing of the 27 Complaint and Answer, the defendant was Kilolo Kijazazi, who has subsequently 28 been superseded by Defendant Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security. 1 (Id. at 42-43.) On the other hand, Defendant requests that “[t]his Court should affirm

2 the Commissioner’s final decision, as the ALJ decision is free from harmful, legal error 3 and supported by substantial evidence.” (Id. at 43.) On February 22, 2024, Plaintiff 4 filed the Notice of Filing Exhibits (“Notice of Filing Exhibits”), which included four 5 exhibits that “were inadvertently not attached to the filed Joint Stipulation.” (Dkt. 32.) 6 On June 25, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation. 7 (Dkt. 34.) Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by July 9, 2024. 8 (See Dkt. 33.) On July 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report and 9 Recommendation, (Dkt. 35) (“Objection”)). 10 II. Analysis 11 “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 12 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 13 § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (stating “[t]he district judge must 14 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 15 properly objected to,” and “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the 16 recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 17 magistrate judge with instructions”). Proper objections require “specific written 18 objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of 20 those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to 21 which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna- 22 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute makes it clear that the 23 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 24 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Where no objection has been made, 25 arguments challenging a finding are deemed waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) 26 (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file 27 written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by 28 rules of court.”). Moreover, “[o]bjections to a R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the 1 same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.” Chith v.

2 Haynes, 2021 WL 4744596, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 12, 2021). 3 In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends “that the 4 District Judge issue an order: (1) accepting the findings and recommendations in this 5 Report; (2) affirming the ALJ’s decision; and (3) entering judgment in favor of the 6 agency.” (Dkt. 34 at 10.) In the Objection, in summary, Plaintiff objects to: (1) the 7 “Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Holding that the ALJ committed no error evaluating 8 [Plaintiff’s] conversion disorder;” and the “Magistrate Judge’s proposal that the ALJ 9 did not reversibly err in evaluating ‘Plaintiff’s credibility.’” (Dkt. 35 at 2-8.) In 10 conclusion, Plaintiff states, “Based on the foregoing, as well as the arguments 11 articulated in Plaintiff’s brief, this Court should grant [Plaintiff’s] motion for summary 12 judgment, deny the Commissioner’s motion, reverse the Commissioner’s decision and 13 remand this case in accordance with the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” (Id. 14 at 8.) 15 In this case, after conducting a de novo review of the Objection, the court agrees 16 with each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Report and 17 Recommendation, including the recommendations that “that the District Judge issue an 18 order: (1) accepting the findings and recommendations in this Report; (2) affirming the 19 ALJ’s decision; and (3) entering judgment in favor of the agency.” (Dkt. 34 at 10.) 20 Accordingly, the Objection is OVERRULED on the merits. 21 In sum, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed the record, 22 including the Report and Recommendation, the Complaint, the Answer, the Joint 23 Stipulation, the Notice of Filing Exhibits, the Objection, and the other records of the 24 case. After conducting a de novo determination of the Report and Recommendation, 25 including the specific portions to which the Objection pertains, the court concurs with 26 and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in the Report and 27 Recommendation. 28 1 HI. Conclusion 2 Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court 3 | adopts and the Report and Recommendation, and accepts each of the findings of fact 4 | and conclusions of law therein. Accordingly, the court affirms the ALJ’s decision, 5 | and enters judgment in favor of the agency. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Lob /— 19 | Dated: August 5, 2024 Hon. Fred W. Slaughter 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28