(SS) Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING 18 Findings and Recommendations, GRANTING 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, DENYING 16 Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Remanding for Further Proceedings Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g); ORDER Directing Entry of Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff Sarah Jane Thomas and Against Defendant Martin O' Malley, Commissioner of Social Security, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/25/2024. CASE CLOSED. (Maldonado, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SARAH JANE THOMAS,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
MARTIN O’MALLEY,
Commissioner of Social Security,

15
16
17
18
19
20

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:24-cv-0192 JLT HBK
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)
ORDER DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SARAH JANE
THOMAS AND AGAINST DEFENDANT
MARTIN O’MALLEY, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY
(Docs. 14, 16, 18)

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

1

take additional testimony from a vocational expert which includes all of the limitations credited

2

by the ALJ.” (Id. 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. (Id.)

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.” (Id., 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.

14

The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 8, 2024 (Doc. 18), are
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
19

to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceeding.
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
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 25, 2024

25
26
27
28
2