(SS) Silva v. Commissioner of Social Security

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DARLENE Y. SILVA, No. 1:21-cv-0045 JLT BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND REMANDING 13 v. THIS ACTION PURSUANT TO SENTENCE SIX OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,1 (Docs. 21, 24, 26) Defendants.

17 Darlene Silva asserts she is entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act, and sought review of the administrative decision denying her applications for benefits. On January 17, 2023, the magistrate judge observed there was “only one day separating the ALJ’s decision and the approval of her subsequent claim for disability benefits.” (Doc. 26 at 9.) Due to “the lack of information concerning the second application,” the magistrate judge found the Court was unable to “determine if the second application involved different medical evidence or if there was some other reason for the change.” (Id. at 8-9.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action be remanded for further proceedings pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), (Id. at 9.)

27 1 Kilolo Kijakazi became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on July 9, 2021. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Kilolo Kijakazi is substituted for Andrew Saul as the defendant in this suit.

1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties on January 17, 2023 | and informed the parties that any objections were to be filed within 14 days after service. (Doc.

3 | 26at9.) In addition, the Court advised that “the failure to file objections within the specified | time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings’ on | appeal.” (Ud., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). No objections | were filed, and the time to do so has passed.

7 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case.

8 | Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on January 17, 2023 (Doc. 26) are 11 ADOPTED in full.

12 2. Plaintiff's appeal from the administrative decision (Doc. 21) is granted.

13 3. The Commissioner’s request to affirm the decision (Doc. 24) is denied.

14 4. This matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s 15 decision pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

1g | Dated: _February 2, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE