Myndi Amber C. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security Administration

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: December 10, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-00389
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JS-6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No. 8:25-cv-00389-FWS-SSC 11

12 MYNDI AMBER C.,1 ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 CONCLUSIONS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [19] 15 v. AND OVERRULING OBJECTIONS [20] 16 FRANK BISIGNANO,2 17 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINSTRATION, 18

19 Defendant. 20 21 /// 22 /// 23

24 1 Plaintiff’s name is partially redacted in accordance with Rule 5.2(c)(2)(B) of the 25 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the recommendation of the Committee on Court 26 Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States issued on May 1, 2018. 27 2 The Commissioner’s name has been updated in accordance with Rule 25(d) of the 28 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 I. Introduction and Relevant Procedural History

2 Before the court is the Magistrate Judge’s November 17, 2025, Report and

3 Recommendation. (Dkt. 19 (“Report and Recommendation”).) Based on the state of

4 the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court ADOPTS the Report and

5 Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge, including each of the findings of

6 fact and conclusions of law therein.

7 In summary, on February 28, 2025, Plaintiff Myndi Amber C. (“Plaintiff”) filed

8 a Complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security Administration

9 (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”). (Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”).) On May 2, 2025,

10 Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint, that also included case records. (Dkt. 9. 11 (“Answer).) On August 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Support of the 12 Complaint. (Dkt. 12 (“Plaintiff’s Memorandum”).) On August 29, 2025, Defendant 13 filed a Brief requesting the court to affirm the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. 14 (Dkt. 16 (“Defendant’s Brief”).) On October 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Reply in 15 support of the Plaintiff’s Memorandum. (Dkt. 17 (“Reply”).) On November 17, 16 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 19) On 17 December 1, 2025, Petitioner objected to the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 20 18 (“Objections”).) 19 II. Discussion 20 “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 21 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 22 § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (stating “[t]he district judge must 23 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 24 properly objected to,” and “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the 25 recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 26 magistrate judge with instructions”). Proper objections require “specific written 27 objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of 1 those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to

2 which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna-

3 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute makes it clear that the

4 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de

5 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Where no objection has been made,

6 arguments challenging a finding are deemed waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)

7 (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file

8 written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by

9 rules of court.”). Moreover, “[o]bjections to a R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the

10 same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.” Chith v. 11 Haynes, 2021 WL 4744596, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 12, 2021). 12 In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that 13 the court issue an order: 14 (1) accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) directing 15 that Judgment be entered AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner. 16 17 (Report and Recommendation at 10.) 18 In the Objections, in summary, Plaintiff disagrees with the analysis and 19 conclusions set forth in the Report and Recommendation, and Plaintiff requests that 20 the case be “remand[ed] for further administrative proceedings, including a de novo 21 hearing and decision.” (Objections at 2-6.) After conducting a de novo review of the 22 Objections, the court agrees with each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law 23 set forth in the Report and Recommendation, including each of the recommendations 24 contained therein. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s arguments set forth in the Objections are 25 OVERRULED on the merits. 26 In sum, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed the record, 27 including the Report and Recommendation, the Complaint, the Answer, Plaintiff’s 28 Memorandum, Defendant’s Brief, the Reply, the Objections, and the other records of 1 | the case. After conducting a de novo review of the Objections, the court concurs with 2 | and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in the Report and 3 | Recommendation. 4 HI. Conclusion 5 Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court 6 | adopts the Report and Recommendation and accepts each of the findings of fact and 7 | conclusions of law therein. Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Judgment is 8 | entered AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner. 9

11 Dated: December 10, 2025 Hon. Fred W. Slaughter 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28