Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Social Security

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KULDIP SINGH, Case No. 1:24-cv-00533 JLT BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (Doc. 18) Defendant.

18 Kuldip Singh seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1.) The assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations and recommends denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, affirming the agency’s decision to deny benefits, and entering judgment in favor of the Commissioner. 1 (Doc. 26.)

23 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and notified them that any objections were due within fourteen days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections; Defendant did not.

25 (Doc. 27.) The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections and has performed a de novo review 1 The Findings and Recommendations occasionally employ the language of a dispositive or final order, such as the concluding statement that the “Court upholds the AJL’s decision.” (Doc. 26 at 19.) The Court construes these statements as recommendations, not orders, given their context.

1 under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). Following this review, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis, and the Court adopts them in full; however, the Court addresses two of Plaintiff’s objections briefly below in the interest of creating a clear and complete record.

5 First, contrary to Plaintiff’s objections, and as the magistrate judge correctly summarized in the Findings and Recommendations, the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) decision complied with the terms of the stipulated remand order issued by the District Court in Case No. 1:20-cv-01798 SAB. (Doc. 15-2 at 957–63; Doc. 26 at 2–3, 9–10.) The parties had stipulated before the District Court in that prior case—and the Court had accordingly ordered— the Appeals Council to instruct the ALJ in turn to “reevaluate the medical evidence, including, but not limited to, all the medical-source opinion evidence.” (Doc. 15-2 at 963.) The ALJ did so, including the opinion evidence of Dr. Naveen Alam, MD,2 a treating physician, as the Appeals Council also specifically instructed. (Doc. 15-2 at 873–87, 967–68; Doc. 26 at 3–8.) This record thus shows neither the Appeals Council nor the ALJ violated the law of the case, the rule of the mandate, or the general principles motivating those two doctrines.

16 Second, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s medical records, including multiple medical opinions, found the record contradicted Dr. Alam’s assessment, and explained why, again contrary to Plaintiff’s objections. (Doc. 26 at 12–15; Doc. 15-2 at 879–84.) In short, more than a “scintilla of evidence” supports the ALJ’s decision, which is all the “substantial evidence” standard demands. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 402 (1971). This case is thus unlike others in which ALJs have wrongly rejected the opinions of treating physicians summarily, including those Plaintiff cites. Cf., e.g., Martinez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:20-cv-00728 CDB, 2024 WL 2786748, at *15 (E.D. Cal. May 30, 2024) (holding ALJ’s conclusory assertion of “inconsistency” fell short of the relevant standard).

25 The Court otherwise overrules Plaintiff’s objections without further explanation. For Plaintiff contends the opinions of two doctors are actually at issue. (Doc. 27 at 2 n.2.) The record contradicts that contention, as the Magistrate Judge explained. (Doc. 26 at 10 n.3; Doc.

15-2 at 854.) In short, although the reports in question are stamped with the address of a joint medical practice, they bear the signature of Dr. Alam only. (Doc. 15-2 at 859, 862.)

1 | these reasons, the Court thus ORDERS: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 23, 2025 (Doc. 26) are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL.

4 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) and his appeal from the 5 administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is DENIED and the 6 agency’s determination to deny benefits is AFFIRMED.

7 3. The Clerk of this Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner of 8 Social Security and against Plaintiff Kuldip Singh and to close this case.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: _ January 8, 2026 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE