(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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?