(SS) L.A.A.A.S. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 L.A.A.A.S., a minor, No. 2:23-cv-02981-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 19 (“Commissioner”) denying an application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title 20 XVI of the Social Security Act (“Act”). On February 14, 2025, the magistrate judge filed 21 findings and recommendations which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. The deadline has 23 passed, and neither party has filed objections. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 28 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 1 | the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. The February 14, 2025, findings and recommendations are ADOPTED in full; 4 2. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED; 5 3. The Commissioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is DENIED; 6 4. Judgment is entered for Plaintiff; and 7 5. This matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with 8 this order. 9 | DATED: March 11, 2025 10 11 12 7, 13 TROY L. NUNLEY 4 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28