Tara Amber Dolan v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

Tara Amber Dolan v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedSeptember 8, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-01617

StatusUnknown

This text of Tara Amber Dolan v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (Tara Amber Dolan v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tara Amber Dolan v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TARA AMBER DOLAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-1617-DJC-JDP (SS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 13, 2025, the Magistrate Judge 20 filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and 21 which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations 22 were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 23 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 24 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 25 are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) 26 (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the 27 district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds 28 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper 1 || analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed August 13, 2025, are 4 ADOPTED; 5 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 13, is GRANTED; 6 3. The Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 16, is 7 DENIED; 8 4. The matter is remanded for further proceedings; and 9 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in plaintiff's favor and close 10 this case. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _September 5, 2025 “Daal J CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TARA AMBER DOLAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-1617-DJC-JDP (SS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 13, 2025, the Magistrate Judge 20 filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and 21 which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations 22 were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 23 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 24 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 25 are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) 26 (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the 27 district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds 28 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper 1 || analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed August 13, 2025, are 4 ADOPTED; 5 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 13, is GRANTED; 6 3. The Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 16, is 7 DENIED; 8 4. The matter is remanded for further proceedings; and 9 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in plaintiff's favor and close 10 this case. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _September 5, 2025 “Daal J CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tara Amber Dolan v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tara-amber-dolan-v-frank-bisignano-commissioner-of-social-security-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack