(SS) Madrid v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK FERNANDO MADRID, No. 2:19-cv-1421 KJM KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On May 12, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 19 served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 20 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. That period having passed, neither 21 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 23 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 24 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 25 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 26 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 27 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 28 ///// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 35) are adopted in full; 3 2. Plaintiffs counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (ECF No. 32) 4 is GRANTED, and plaintiff shall be paid the sum of $19,560.00 from the withheld 5 amounts; 6 3. Counsel is ordered to reimburse plaintiff $6,500.00 in previously-awarded EAJA fees; 7 and 8 4. This case is closed. 9 | DATED: July 13, 2022. 10 1 eee CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28