(SS) Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GARY SCOTT BROWN, No. 1:23-cv-1168-WBS-GSA 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 15 SECURITY,1 16 Defendant. (ECF Nos. 13, 18, 21) 17 18 Plaintiff Gary Scott Brown initiated this action seeking judicial review of a final decision 19 of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for disability insurance benefits 20 pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1). The matter was referred to a United 21 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On October 3, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 23 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied, that defendant’s cross- 24 motion be granted, and that the Commissioner’s final decision be affirmed. (ECF No. 21). The 25 findings and recommendations advised the parties that objections were due within fourteen days. 26 On October 16, 2024, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations, which the 27 1 Martin O’Malley, who has been appointed Commissioner of Social Security, is substituted as the defendant in this 28 case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) 1 | court has considered. (ECF No. 22). On October 28, 2024, defendant filed a response to 2 | plaintiffs objections, which the court has also considered. (ECF No. 23). 3 The court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 4 | objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Commodore 5 || Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 6 | 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection 7 | has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. 8 | See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s 9 | conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 10 | 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983) 11 After reviewing the record, including plaintiff's objections and defendant’s response 12 | thereto, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 13 | proper analysis. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 3, 2024 CECF No. 21) 16 are ADOPTED IN FULL; 17 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED; 18 3. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18) is 19 GRANTED; 20 4. The Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED; and 21 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of 22 defendant Commissioner of Social Security and against plaintiff. 23 | Dated: November 19, 2024 Ju LZ, ak 1d 24 WILLIAMB.SHUBB © | 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28