(SS)Molina v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2008cv01473 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 21 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; REMANDING CASE to Commissioner of Social Security; Copy of remand order sent; Judgment to be entered for PLAINTIFF and against DEFENDANT, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 03/05/2010. CASE CLOSED (Martin, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(SS)Molina v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MIGUEL A. MOLINA, 11 1:08-cv-01473-AWI-SMS ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 21) Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 14 15 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT (Doc. 1) ORDER REMANDING ACTION PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR Defendant. / 16 ORDER DIRECTING JUDGMENT BE ENTERED FOR PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANT 17 18 19 Plaintiff is represented by counsel and seeks judicial 20 review of an administrative decision of the Commissioner of 21 Social Security denying, in whole or in part, Plaintiff’s claim 22 for benefits under the Social Security Act. 23 On January 11, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and 24 Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which 25 contained notice to the parties that any objections to the 26 Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) 27 days. 28 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. To date, the parties have not filed objections to the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2 § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 305, this Court has conducted a de 3 novo review of this case. 4 file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be 5 supported by the record and by proper analysis. Having carefully reviewed the entire 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. 8 The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 11, 2010, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 9 2. Plaintiff’s social security complaint is GRANTED; 10 3. This action is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 11 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration, consistent with this 12 decision, of Plaintiff’s status as disabled, including whether or 13 not Plaintiff (a) suffered from a severe impairment or 14 impairments, (b) could perform any past relevant work and, (c) if 15 appropriate, whether, on the basis of Plaintiff’s age, education, 16 work experience, and residual functional capacity, he could 17 perform any other gainful and substantial work within the 18 economy; and, 19 4. 20 Judgment be ENTERED for Plaintiff and against Defendant. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: 0m8i78 March 5, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
