Jeanette Harris v. Carolyn W. Colvin et al, No. 2:2015cv03732 - Document 19 (C.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge John F. Walter for Report and Recommendation (Issued), 17 . Having reviewed the record, the Court concurs with and accepts the Magistrate Judges recommendations. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that judgment be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner and dismissing this action. (See Order for further details) (bem)

Download PDF
Jeanette Harris v. Carolyn W. Colvin et al Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 JEANETTE HARRIS, Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 16 17 18 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 15-3732-JFW (JPR) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the 19 Complaint, Joint Stipulation, Administrative Record, and all 20 other records on file as well as the Report and Recommendation of 21 the U.S. Magistrate Judge. On August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed 22 objections to the R. & R. The Court has made a de novo 23 determination of those portions of the R. & R. to which the 24 objections pertained. 25 Although many of Plaintiff’s objections simply repeat 26 arguments in the Joint Stipulation – and therefore the Court does 27 not address them because they were adequately considered in the 28 R. & R. – certain of her contentions warrant discussion. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiff complains that the Magistrate Judge did not take 2 into account “the periods of exacerbation and remission that is 3 [sic] characteristic of multiple sclerosis.” (Objs. at 3.) But 4 the Magistrate Judge specifically noted Dr. Malcolm Shaner’s 5 diagnosis to that effect (see, e.g., R. & R. at 10 (noting 6 doctor’s diagnosis of “relapsing/remitting” multiple sclerosis)) 7 and observed that Dr. Shaner nonetheless found that Plaintiff’s 8 multiple sclerosis consistently improved over the course of two 9 years (see id. at 8-10, 17).1 10 Plaintiff also writes that “Plaintiff’s medications and 11 their side-effects were generally ignored.” (Objs. at 7.) But 12 the Magistrate Judge thoroughly discussed Plaintiff’s medicines, 13 explaining what they were and how they affected Plaintiff’s 14 symptoms. (See, e.g., R. & R. at 9 & n.6 (noting prescription 15 for Copaxone and describing what it was used for), 10 (noting 16 that doctor observed that Plaintiff was “doing well” on 17 Copaxone), 11 & n.7 (noting that although Plaintiff was 18 prescribed psychiatric medication she later admitted that she 19 never took it), 25-26 (discussing various medications), 40 20 (noting that Plaintiff claimed her medicines made her fall 21 asleep), 42-43 (finding that Plaintiff’s conditions were 22 effectively treated with various medicines).) Plaintiff does not 23 identify what side effects the Magistrate Judge allegedly failed 24 to consider. 25 26 27 28 1 As the Magistrate Judge also observed, Plaintiff never argued for a closed period of disability based on any period of exacerbated symptoms. (See R. & R. at 21.) 2 1 Having reviewed the record, the Court concurs with and 2 accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. IT THEREFORE IS 3 ORDERED that judgment be entered affirming the decision of the 4 Commissioner and dismissing this action. 5 6 DATED: September 19, 2016 7 JOHN F. WALTER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.