Matejcek v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO JOSHUA GENE M.,1 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cv-00314-BLW- DKG v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL AND RECOMMENDATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation filed by the United States Magistrate Judge Debora K. Grasham (Dkt. 21).

On September 17, 2021, Petitioner protectively filed an application for a period of disability under Title II of the Social Security Act. Petitioner’s application was denied upon initial review and on reconsideration. Petitioner sought a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, and the ALJ issued a decision denying Petitioner's claim. Petitioner’s timely request for review by the Appeal's Council was denied, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Petitioner then timely appealed this final decision to the Court.

1 Plaintiff’s name is 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.

On May 2, 2025, Judge Grasham issued a Report and Recommendation in this matter. (Dkt. 20). Pursuant to the statute, Judge Grasham gave the parties time to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation; however the time to submit objections was shortened pursuant to District of Idaho Local Civil Rule 72.1(b)(2). See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). All objections were due no later than May 16, 2025. None were filed.

Having thoroughly reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and no objections having been filed, the Court accepts Judge Grasham’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 May 2, 2025 (Dkt. 21) is INCORPORATED and ADOPTED in its entirety.

2. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation.

3. The action is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

4. The Remand shall be 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 the Plaintiff in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

“a DATED: May 20, 2025 ie) | i A B. Lynn Winmill 4iCEO U.S. District Court Judge