(SS) Aninion 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 VIRGIL PARAMI ANINION, No. 1:24-cv-00243-WBS-GSA 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 (ECF Nos. 14, 18, 20)

17 18 Plaintiff Virgil Parami Aninion initiated this action seeking judicial review of a final 19 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for disability insurance 20 benefits pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1). The matter was referred to a 21 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On April 21, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 23 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied, that Defendant’s cross- 24 motion be granted, and that the Commissioner’s final decision be affirmed. (ECF No. 20). The 25 findings and recommendations advised the parties that objections were due within fourteen days. 26 On May 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations, which the Court 27 has considered. (ECF No. 21). On July 14, 2025, the Commissioner filed a response to 28 plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No. 23). ] The Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 2 || objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Commodore 3 | Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 4 | 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection 5 || has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. 6 || See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s 7 || conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 8 | 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983) 9 After reviewing the record, including Plaintiff's objections and the Commissioner’s 10 || response, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 11 || proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 21, 2025 (ECF No. 20) 14 are ADOPTED IN FULL; 15 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14) is DENIED; 16 3. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18) is 17 GRANTED; 18 4. The Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED; and 19 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of 20 Defendant Commissioner of Social Security and against Plaintiff. 21 | Dated: August 4, 2025 22 eed beE— 3 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28