(SS)(PS) Bockari v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICK A. BOBKARI, No. 2:19-cv-00698-TLN-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Patrick A. Bobkari (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding in this social security action pro se 19 and in forma pauperis. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 20 Local Rule 302(c)(15) and (21). 21 On April 13, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 22 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 30.) On May 6, 2020, 24 Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 31.) 25 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 26 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 27 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see 28 also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed 1 findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and 2 decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th 3 Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi 4 Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 5 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 6 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 7 judge’s analysis. Plaintiff’s objections to the Findings and Recommendations assert arguments 8 already properly addressed by the magistrate judge and are therefore overruled. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 13, 2020 (ECF No. 30), are adopted in 11 full; 12 2. Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) is DENIED, and his 13 motions at ECF No. 20 and 8 are DISREGARDED as premature and duplicative; 14 3. The Commissioner’s Motion for Remand (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED; 15 4. The matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings; and 16 5. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendant and close this case. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 DATED: May 27, 2020 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28