Vw □□ 2 4 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 || LAURENA GAXIOLA, ) Case No: 2:24-cv-03966-ODW-PVC 9 ) 0 Plaintiff, ) ) JUDGMENT 11 VS. ) 12 ) MARTIN O’MALLEY, ) 13 || Commissioner of Social Security, ) 14 ) Defendant. ) WY 16 The Court hereby approves the parties’ Stipulation to Voluntary Remand 17 Pursuant to Sentence Four of

(g) and to Entry of Judgment 18 (“Stipulation to Remand”’) lodged with this Judgment of Remand, IT IS 19 HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the above-captioned action is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings 39 consistent with the Stipulation to Remand.! . 23 ful DATED: November 15, 2024 24 HON. PEDRO V. CASTILLO 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 ||! In Bastidas v. Chappell,

(9th Cir. 2015), the Ninth Circuit held that the magistrate judge had the authority to grant the petitioner’s request to dismiss two unexhausted 28 || claims in his habeas petition without the approval of a district judge, as the magistrate judge’s order was simply “doing what [the] habeas petitioner has asked.” /d. at 1165. While Bastidas is not entirely on point, the stipulation for remand and entry of judgment here is jointly made by th parties, without any compulsion from the magistrate judge. Because there appears to be no danger of undue prejudice to any party, the Court grants the request.