1

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 WESTERN DIVISION

10 VINCENT A GRIFFIETH, Case No. 2:25-cv-03661-SSS-PVC 11 Plaintiff, JUDGMENT OF REMAND 12

13 vs.

14 FRANK BISIGNANO 15 Commissioner of Social Security,

16 Defendant. 17 18 19 The Court having approved the parties’ Stipulation to Remand for Further 20 Proceedings Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42.U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Stipulation to 21 Remand”), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the 22 above-captioned action is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for 23 24 25 26 27 1 || further proceedings consistent with the Stipulation to Remand.! 2 ° bd fo 4 || DATED: September 4, 2025 HON. PEDRO V. CASTILLO 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Bastidas v. Chappell,

(9th Cir. 2015), the Ninth Circuit held 23 || that the magistrate judge had the authority to grant the petitioner’s request to 94 || dismiss two unexhausted claims in his habeas petition without the approval of a district judge, as the magistrate judge’s order was simply “doing what [the] habeas 25 || petitioner has asked.”

. While Bastidas is not entirely on point, the %6 stipulation for remand and entry of judgment here is jointly made by the parties, without any compulsion from the magistrate judge. Because there appears to be no 27 || danger of undue prejudice to any party, the Court grants the request.

JUDGMENT OF REMAND Page 2