1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHARON SMASON, Case No. 2:18-cv-05924-DMG-MAA

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner JUDGE of Social Security, 15 16 Defendant. 17

18 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Complaint and all 19 other records on file, as well as the Report and Recommendation of the United 20 States Magistrate Judge [“R&R,” Doc. # 26]. 21 Plaintiff submitted a letter addressed to the Magistrate Judge dated August 22 12, 2019. [Doc. # 27.] The letter violates Local Rule 83-2.5, which provides that 23 “parties to any action or proceeding shall refrain from writing letters to the judge.” 24 The Court previously warned Plaintiff not to submit letters to the judge. (See Doc. 25 # 21.) Nevertheless, because the letter appears to be responsive to the R&R (see 26 Doc. # 27 at 3 (“I OBJECT. I DO DESERVE DISABILITY.”)), the Court filed the 27 letter and construed it as Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R. Defendant did not 28 respond to Plaintiff’s Objections. 1 In the Objections, Plaintiff narrates the onset of her alleged disability, 2 describes her alleged impairments and their impact, and details tragic circumstances 3 in her personal life. (See generally Doc. # 27.) Although the Court is sympathetic 4 to Plaintiff’s difficulties and her plea for disability benefits, the Court has a limited 5 role in the disability determination process. As previously explained (see Doc. # 6 24), the Court is limited to review the decision of the Commissioner to deny 7 Plaintiff disability benefits. See

(g). The Court may reverse the 8 adverse decision only if the Commissioner’s findings are not supported by 9 substantial evidence or the agency did not apply the proper legal standards. See 10 Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,

(9th Cir. 2014). The 11 Court lacks the authority to determine directly whether Plaintiff is disabled, as 12 Plaintiff implores this Court to do. (See Doc. # 27 at 3.) Plaintiff’s Objections and 13 prior filings do not present a basis upon which the Court may review the decision of 14 the Commissioner, let alone a basis upon which Defendant could be given fair 15 notice of Plaintiff’s claims of error. In light of the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of 16 the five-factor test for dismissal in the R&R, dismissal of the action without 17 prejudice is appropriate. 18 After having made a de novo determination of the portions of the Report of 19 Recommendation to which Plaintiff directed her Objections, the Court concurs with 20 and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 2 1. The Report and Recommendation is accepted; 3 2. Plaintiff's Objections are overruled; 4 3. Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action without prejudice; 5 and 6 4 The Clerk of Court shall serve this Order and the Judgment on Plaintiff 7 and counsel for Defendant. 8 9 || DATED: January 2, 2020 10 fou STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28