(SS) Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUPE ELIZABETH ANDERSON, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-00710 JLT HBK ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, ) CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY Commissioner of Social Security,1 ) JUDGMENT, AND REMANDING CASE TO 15 ) COMMISSIONER Defendant. ) ) (Docs. 1, 20, 23, 26) 16 17 Lupe Elizabeth Anderson initiated this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of 18 the Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. 1, 20.) The assigned magistrate judge found “the 19 ALJ did not provide clear and convincing reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for 20 rejecting Plaintiff’s symptom claims.” (Doc. 26 at 10; see also id. at 6-10.) Therefore, the 21 magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be granted, Defendant’s 22 construed cross-motion for summary judgment be denied, and the decision be remanded for 23 further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Id. at 11.) 24 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 25 any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 26 at 11-12.) The Court advised the parties that 26 the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 27 1 The Court has substituted Martin O’Malley, who has been appointed the Acting Commissioner of Social 28 Security, as the defendant in this suit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 appeal.” (d. at 12, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) No 2 | objections were filed, and the time to do so has passed. 3 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 4 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 5 | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on January 5, 2024 (Doc. 26) are 7 ADOPTED in full. 8 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) is GRANTED. 9 3. Defendant’s construed Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) is 10 DENIED. 11 4. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.§ 405(g), the Court REVERSES the 12 Commissioner’s decision and REMANDS the case back to the Commissioner of 13 Social Security for further proceedings. 14 5. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and close this case. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 | Dated: _January 25, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28