Dalrymple v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

ERIC D., Case No. 23-cv-346-MMA-WVG

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