1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESUS ZAMORA VARGAS, No. 1:21-cv-00274-DAD-HBK (SS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY SECURITY, JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S 15 CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY Defendant. JUDGMENT, AND REMANDING THIS 16 CASE TO DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER

17 (Doc. Nos. 21, 24, 28) 18 19 20 Plaintiff Jesus Zamora Vargas, proceeding with counsel, brought this action seeking 21 judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying plaintiff’s 22 application for benefits under the Social Security Act. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a 23 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 On March 15, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 25 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 21) be granted, 26 defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 24) be denied, defendant’s decision 27 denying plaintiff’s application for benefits be reversed, and this case be remanded back to 28 defendant Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings. (Doc. No. 28 at 11.) 1 | Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that the administrative law judge failed to provide 2 | specific, clear and convincing reasons to reject plaintiffs testimony regarding plaintiff's pain. 3 | Ud. at 6-10); see also Lambert v. Saul,

(9th Cir. 2020) (“The ALJ did err, 4 | however, in failing to articulate sufficient reasons for refusing to credit Lambert’s testimony 5 | about the severity of her medical condition. ... We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment 6 | and remand with instructions to return this case to the ALJ for proceedings consistent with this 7 | opinion.”). 8 The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 9 | notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Ud. at 10 11.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in 11 | which to do so has now passed. 12 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 13 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 14 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 15 Accordingly: 16 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 15, 2024 (Doc. No. 28) are 17 adopted in full; 18 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 21) is granted; 19 3. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 24) is denied; 20 4. This case is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with 21 this order and the findings and recommendations issued on March 15, 2024 (Doc. 22 No. 28); and 23 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and close 24 this case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. *° | Dated: _ April 12, 2024 Dab A. 2, axel 27 DALE A. DROZD 3g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE