Dalrymple v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC D., Case No. 23-cv-346-MMA-WVG

12 Plaintiff, AMENDED ORDER 13 v. 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On February 22, 2023, Eric D. filed this social security appeal challenging the 19 denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 20 § 405(g). See Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 1–2. On March 30, 2023, the Court referred the matter to 21 the assigned United States Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation pursuant to 22 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1. See Doc. No. 9. 23 On June 7, 2023, the parties jointly moved to remand this action to the Social 24 Security Administration. See Doc. No. 13. The assigned United States Magistrate Judge 25 granted the motion and remanded the matter, see Doc. No. 14, and the Clerk of Court 26 entered judgment, accordingly, see Doc. No. 15. It appears now that this was the 27 inadvertent result of oversight, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(A)–(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; CivLR 28 72.1 (providing that Magistrate Judges may hear and determine any nondispositive 1 || pretrial matter and may submit to the District Judge proposed findings and a 2 ||recommended disposition for case-dispositive motions), and therefore, pursuant to 3 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), the Court AMENDS the Remand Order. 4 The Court retroactively GRANTS the parties’ joint motion and REMANDS this 5 || action to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the 6 || parties’ joint motion, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), as of June 7, 2023. 7 || The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to issue an Amended Judgment in favor 8 Plaintiff, and against Defendant, reversing the final decision of the Commissioner, 9 || consistent with the terms of the parties’ joint motion, as of June 7, 2023. 10 Because this Amended Order and the forthcoming Amended Judgment contain no 11 substantive changes and do not alter the parties’ substantive rights, the time for filing a 12 || notice of appeal and the relevant Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. 13 || § 2412(d) deadlines remain unchanged. Cf Harman v. Harper, 7 F.3d 1455, 1457 (9th 14 || Cir. 1993) (holding that corrections under Rule 60(a) do not affect the time for filing a 15 ||notice of appeal). After the Clerk of Court issues an Amended Judgment, the Court will 16 |/issue a written ruling on the pending motions for EAJA attorney fees in due course. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: September 12, 2023 19 BMaikeh M hilt 20 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 1 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28