JS-6 2 4 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 || MICHELLE ZALDIVAR, ) Case No: 5:24-cv-01934-FWS-PVC 9 ) 10 Plaintiff, ) [ideale ) JUDGMENT 11 VS. ) 12 ) MICHELLE KING, ) 13 |} Acting Commissioner of Social ) 14 || Security, ) ) Defendant. 16 17 The Court hereby approves the parties’ Stipulation to Voluntary Remand 18 |] Pursuant to Sentence Four of

(g) and to Entry of Judgment 19 |! (“Stipulation to Remand”) lodged with this Judgment of Remand, IT IS 20 || HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the above-captioned 71 |! action is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the Stipulation to Remand.! 23 | ° 24 || DATED: February 7, 2025 Lyf. 25 HON. PEDRO V. CASTILLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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.