(SS) Drummond v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING 21 Findings and Recommendations, Granting 15 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying 19 Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Remanding for Further Proceedings Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/4/2024. CASE CLOSED. (Lawrence, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 THOMAS STEPHEN DRUMMOND, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security,1 15 Case No. 1:23-cv-0942 JLT BAM ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 16 Defendant. 17 18 ORDER DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF THOMAS STEPHEN DRUMMOND AND AGAINST DEFENDANT MARTIN O’MALLEY, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 19 (Docs. 15, 19, and 21) 20 Thomas Stephen Drummond initiated this action seeking judicial review of a final 21 22 decision denying his application for benefits under the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1.) The 23 magistrate judge found “ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record 24 as a whole and was not based on proper legal standards,” because the ALJ failed to properly 25 evaluate Plaintiff’s testimony. (Id. at 18; see also id. at 9-16.) The magistrate judge determined 26 the matter should be remanded for the ALJ to “address whether Plaintiff's symptoms testimony is 27 Martin O’Malley became the Commissioner of Social Security on December 20, 2023. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Martin O’Malley is substituted as the defendant in this suit. 1 28 1 1 adequately supported or whether there are specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting 2 Plaintiff’s symptoms testimony.” (Id. at 17.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended that 3 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be granted, the Commissioner’s cross-motion be denied, 4 the decision of the agency be reversed, and judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff. (Id. at 18.) 5 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and notified them that 6 any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 21 at 18.) The Court advised the parties that the 7 failure to file objections by the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. (Id., 8 citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither party filed objections, 9 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 the 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. 14 The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 16, 2024 (Doc. 21) are ADOPTED in full. 15 2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 15) is GRANTED. 16 3. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19) is DENIED. 17 4. The administrative decision is reversed, and the matter is REMANDED pursuant 18 19 to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings. 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Thomas 20 Stephen Drummond, and against Defendant Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of 21 Social Security, and to close this case. 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 4, 2024 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?