(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)

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