1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 KAREN RODRIGUES, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-1077 JLT GSA ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, REMANDING FOR 13 v. ) FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, AND DIRECTING ) ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANT ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 15 Defendant. ) ) (Docs. 15, 17, and 19) 16

17 Karen Rodrigues seeks judicial review of the administrative decision denying her application 18 for Social Security benefits. (Docs. 1, 15.) The magistrate judge found remand was not warranted 19 based upon Plaintiff’s assertion that the administrative law judge lacked authority to adjudicate this 20 case. (Doc. 19 at 15.) However, the magistrate judge found the ALJ erred in evaluating the medical 21 evidence, and recommended remand for further proceedings. (Id. at 5-15.) In particular, the magistrate 22 judge recommended the ALJ reconsider evidence related to “Plaintiff’s [1] severe left ulnar neuropathy 23 (cubital tunnel syndrome); [2] mild left median neuropathy (carpal tunnel syndrome); [3] cervical 24 degenerative disc disease; [and] [4] aphasia and anxiety.” (Id. at 16.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 25 recommended Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be granted in part, and the Commissioner’s 26 cross-motion be denied in part. (Id.) Further, the ALJ recommended judgment be entered in favor of 27 Plaintiff and against the Commissioner. (Id. at 17.) 28 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that any 1 || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 19 at 17.) The Court advised the parties that the “failure t 2 || file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., citing 3 || Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Plaintiff nor the Commissionet! 4 || filed objections, and the time to do so has passed. 5 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 6 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 7 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 19) are ADOPTED. 9 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 15) is GRANTED in part. 10 3. The Commissioner’s request to affirm the decision (Doc. 23) is DENIED. 11 4. This matter is remanded pursuant to sentence four of

(g) for further 12 proceedings consistent with the Findings and Recommendations. 13 5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Karen 14 Rodrigues, and against Defendant Commissioner of Social Security. 15 16 IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ June 28, 2024 ( Li pA LU. wan 18 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28