(SS) Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 24

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/7/24 ADOPTING in full 23 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING 16 Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Defendant's 17 cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The defendan t Commissioner's decision denying plaintiff's application for benefits is REVERSED and REMANDED back to the defendant Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this order and with 23 the findings and recommendations, including a de novo hearing. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff. CASE CLOSED (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ADRIAN SANTIAGO GARCIA,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

No. 1:22-cv-01307-DAD-HBK

Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, AND REMANDING THIS
ACTION TO DEFENDANT
COMMISSIONER
(Doc. Nos. 16, 17, 23)

19
20

Plaintiff Adrian Santiago Garcia, proceeding with counsel, brought this action seeking

21

judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying plaintiff’s

22

application for benefits under the Social Security Act. The matter was referred to a United States

23

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

24

On April 11, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

25

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 16) be granted,

26

defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 17) be denied, the defendant

27

Commissioner’s decision be reversed, this action be remanded to the defendant Commissioner for

28

further proceedings, and judgment be entered in favor of plaintiff. (Doc. No. 23 at 11.)
1

1

Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) failed to

2

provide reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting the limitation on interaction with

3

the general public opined by agency reviewing physician, Dr. Helen Patterson. (Id. at 6–10.)

4

The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained

5

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at

6

11.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in

7

which to do so has now passed.

8
9
10

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the
findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

11

Accordingly:

12

1.

13

The findings and recommendations issued on April 11, 2024 (Doc. No. 23) are
adopted in full;

14

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 16) is granted;

15

3.

Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 17) is denied;

16

4.

The defendant Commissioner’s decision denying plaintiff’s application for

17

benefits is reversed and remanded back to the defendant Commissioner for further

18

proceedings consistent with this order and with the findings and recommendations

19

(Doc. No. 23), including a de novo hearing;

20

5.

21

this case.

22
23

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and close

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 7, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2