(SS) Crane v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 JOHN HARLEY CRANE, No. 1:23-cv-1289-WBS-GSA 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 (ECF Nos. 20, 21)

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