(SS) Page 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 ALEXANDRA MADELYN PAGE, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-0965 JLT CDB ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ) 14 v. ) JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S ) REQUEST TO AFFIRM THE ADMINISTRATIVE 15 ) DECISION, AND REMANDING TO THE CASE ) FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 16 MARTIN O’MALLEY, ) Commissioner of Social Security1, ) (Docs. 21, 24, and 28) 17 ) Defendant. ) 18 ) ORDER DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN ) FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST 19 ) DEFENDANT ) 20

21 Alexandra Madelyn Page seeks judicial review of a final decision denying her application for 22 child’s insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. Plaintiff asserts the ALJ erred in evaluating 23 the record—including her subjective complaints and assessing her residual functional capacity— and 24 the matter should be remanded. (Doc. 21.) The magistrate judge found the ALJ properly addressed 25 Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. (Doc. 28 at 11-17.) However, the magistrate judge determined the 26 residual functional capacity was not supported by substantial evidence, because the ALJ did not 27

28 1 The Court substituted Martin O’Malley, who was appointed the Commissioner of Social Security, as the defendant in this 1 || adequately analyze Plaintiff's accommodations and erroneously discounted medical records. □□□□ at 2 || 17-24.) The magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be granted anc 3 || the administrative decision be vacated. (/d. at 24.) The magistrate judge also recommended the matt 4 || be remanded for further proceedings, and judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against 5 || Defendant. (d.) 6 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and notified them that any 7 || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 28 at 14.) The Court advised the parties the “failure to fil 8 || objections within the specified time may result in waiver of that party’s rights on appeal.” (/d., citing 9 || Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Plaintiff nor the Commissioner 10 || filed objections, and the time to do so has passed. ll According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 12 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 13 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated January 30, 2024 (Doc. 28) are ADOPTEI 15 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 21) is GRANTED. 16 3. The Commissioner’s request to affirm the decision (Doc. 24) is DENIED. 17 4. The decision of the administrative law judge is VACATED. 18 5. The matter is REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 19 USS.C. § 405(g). 20 6. The Clerk of Court SHALL enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Alexandra Madelyn 21 Page and against Defendant Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ February 16, 2024 ( LAW pA u buy mn 25 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28