Ruiz v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Kathleen Ruiz, No. CV-24-03152-PHX-JJT (ESW)

10 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 14 Defendant. 15 TO THE HONORABLE JOHN J. TUCHI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 16 The Court has considered the Stipulated Motion for Remand (Doc. 13). For good 17 cause shown, the Magistrate Judge will recommend that the case be reversed and remanded 18 for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Sect. 405(g). 19 The Magistrate Judge will further recommend that the Clerk of Court be directed to enter 20 final judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, reversing the final 21 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Based upon the stipulation of the parties, 22 IT IS RECOMMENDED that the above-captioned case be REVERSED and 23 REMANDED for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 24 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the Commissioner shall further develop the record as 25 necessary, offer Plaintiff the opportunity for a hearing, and issue a new decision. 26 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of the Court be directed to 27 enter a final judgment in favor of Plaintiff, and against Defendant, reversing the final 28 decision of the Commissioner. 1 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 2|| Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. 6|| Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 8 may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of 10]! the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of 11]! the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s 121 recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003): Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). 14 Dated this 8th day of January, 2025. 15 ‘ 16 7 | . 17 . 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-