(SS) Thomas 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 SARAH JANE THOMAS, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0192 JLT HBK ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, ) CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY Commissioner of Social Security, ) JUDGMENT, AND REMANDING FOR 15 ) FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO Defendant. ) SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 16 ) ) ORDER DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 17 ) IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SARAH JANE ) THOMAS AND AGAINST DEFENDANT 18 ) MARTIN O’MALLEY, COMMISSIONER OF ) SOCIAL SECURITY 19 ) ) (Docs. 14, 16, 18) 20 ) 21 Sarah Jane Thomas initiated this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the 22 Commissioner of Social Security, which terminated her supplemental security income. (Doc. 1.) 23 The magistrate judge determined “the ALJ’s finding of medical improvement is not supported by 24 substantial evidence.” (Doc. 18 at 10.) The magistrate judge found this also “calls into question 25 the subsequent steps of the sequential analysis including whether the assessed RFC and step five 26 findings are supported by substantial evidence.” (Id. at 11.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 27 recommended the matter be remanded for further proceedings, for the ALJ to “revaluate medical 28 improvement,” “conduct a new sequential analysis, reassess Plaintiff’s RFC and, if necessary, 1 | take additional testimony from a vocational expert which includes all of the limitations credited 2 | bythe ALJ.” (Ud. at 12.) Thus, the magistrate judge also recommended Plaintiff's motion for 3 | summary judgment be granted, the Commissioner’s request to affirm be denied, and judgment be 4 | entered in favor of Plaintiff. Ud.) 5 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 6 | any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 18 at 12.) The Court also advised the parties the 7 | “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on 8 | appeal.” (Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) No objections 9 | were filed, and the time to do so has passed. 10 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 11 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 12 | are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 13 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 8, 2024 (Doc. 18), are 14 ADOPTED in full. 15 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 14) is GRANTED. 16 3. Defendant’s request to affirm the administrative decision (Doc. 16) is DENIED. 17 4. The administrative decision is reversed, and the matter is REMANDED pursuant 18 to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceeding. 19 5. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Sarah Jane Thomas, 20 and against Defendant Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security, and to 21 close this case. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 | Dated: _ November 25, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28