1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONATHAN ADIS, Case No. 2:24-cv-0751-KJM-JDP (SS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LELAND DUDEK, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16

17 On February 4, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 18 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on February 18, 20 2025, and defendant filed a response on March 4, 2025. Both were considered by the 21 undersigned. 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 23

(9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de 24 novo. See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by 25 the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 26 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 27 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 28 ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 4, 2025, are adopted; 3 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 12, is DENIED; 4 3. The Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 19, is 5 GRANTED; and 6 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in the Commissioner’s favor and 7 close the case 8 | DATED: March 18, 2025. oUt 10 — VM —— STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28