Glass v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 30

AMENDED Order. The Court MODIFIES Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation 25 to eliminate all references to disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and ADOPTS the remainder of Magistrate Judge Aco stas Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner and REMANDS this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the immediate calculation and award of benefits. Signed on 08/26/2013 by Judge Anna J. Brown. This Order amends Order 28 . (bb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
3:12-cv-00627-AC

ERIK LEE GLASS,
Plaintiff,

AMENDED ORDER

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 1
Acting Commissioner,
Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and
Recommendation (#25) on July 29, 2013, in which he recommends
that this Court reverse the decision of the Commissioner, remand
for an immediate award of benefits, and enter a final judgment

1

Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of Social
Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the
Security on February 14, 2013.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn W. Colvin should be
substituted for Michael J. Astrue as Defendant in this case. No
further action need be taken to continue this case by reason of
the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act,
42 u.s.c. § 405.
1

AMENDED ORDER

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.

§

405(g).

Defendant filed

timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

The matter

636(b) (1) and

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make
a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's
report.

28 U.S.C.

§

636(b) (1).

See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561

F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane).
The Magistrate Judge refers in at least two places to an
application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title
II of the Social Security Act (the Act).
33.

See 42 U.S.C.

§§

401-

The Commissioner, however, notes this case involves only a

claim by Plaintiff for Supplemental Security Income disability
benefits under Title XVI of the Act.
1383f.

See 42 U.S.C.

§§

1381-

Nevertheless, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's

brief references to DIB do not affect or alter the substance of
his analysis nor the fact that his analysis applies to and
supports his Findings and Recommendation as to Plaintiff's claim
for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits.
This Court has carefully considered the Commissioner's
Objections and concludes they do provide a basis to modify the

2

AMENDED ORDER

Finding and Recommendation.

The Court has also reviewed the

pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find
any other error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court MODIFIES Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and
Recommendation (#25) to eliminate all references to disability
insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and
ADOPTS the remainder of Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and

Recommendation.

Accordingly, the Court REVERSES the decision of

the Commissioner and REMANDS this matter pursuant to sentence
four of 42 U.S.C.

§

405(g) for the immediate calculation and

award of benefits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 26th day of August, 2013.

AN~~

United States District Judge

3

AMENDED ORDER