(SS) Marinoble v. Commissioner of Social Security

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JULIA MARIE MARINOBLE, No. 2:22-cv-00209 KJM CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

18 Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying an application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. On December 2, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections.

23 The court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 24 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”).

27 Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 10) is granted; 3 2. The Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 12) is denied; and 4 3. The matter is remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with this || order.

6 | DATED: January 24, 2023.

8 ( ti / ¢ q_/ 9 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE