Munger v. Commissioner of Social Security
Munger v. Commissioner of Social Security
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
CURTIS EDWARD M.,1 Case No. 1:24-cv-00208-DCN-CWD
Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v.
LELAND DUDEK, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION2
Defendant.
On September 7, 2021, Plaintiff Curtis M. applied for Disability Insurance Benefits with the Social Security Administration. Plaintiff’s application was denied initially on September 14, 2023, and on reconsideration on March 6, 2024. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Plaintiff timely sought the Court’s review. Dkt. 1. On January 6, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale issued a Report and Recommendation in this matter. Dkt. 24. Pursuant to statute, Judge Dale gave the parties fourteen (14) days to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). None were filed.
1 Partially redacted in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
2 Leland Dudek was sworn in as the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on February 16, 2025. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Dudek is substituted as the Defendant in this suit. No further action needs to be taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Having thoroughly reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and no objections having been filed, the Court accepts Judge Dale’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety and enters the following order consistent with the same. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation entered on January 6, 2025 (Dkt. 24), is INCORPORATED and ADOPTED in its entirety; 2. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED; 3. This action is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion; 4. This Remand is considered a “sentence four remand,” consistent with
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Akopyan v. Barnhart,
296 F.3d 852, 854(9th Cir. 2002) 5. The Court will enter a separate judgment in favor of Defendant in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
aa DATED: March 27, 2025
™. alll ee ea Chict US District Court Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 2
Reference
- Status
- Unknown