(SS) Hill v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2018cv01673 - Document 32 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 31 Findings and Recommendations ;ORDERED that this matter be Remanded pursuant to Sentence Four of 42:405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this order, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/29/2021. CASE CLOSED (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL H. HILL, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:18-cv-01673-DAD-HBK Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (Doc. No. 31) Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff Michael H. Hill filed this pro se appeal of the administrative decision of 19 defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for disability insurance 20 benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and supplemental security income under Title 21 XVI of the Social Security Act. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States 22 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On September 10, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 24 recommendations finding that the administrative law judge’s conclusion that plaintiff was abusing 25 substances and had relapsed in May 2017 was not supported by substantial evidence, and that this 26 error was not harmless. (Doc. No. 31 at 9.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended that 27 judgment be entered in favor of plaintiff, the Commissioner’s decision be reversed, and the matter 28 be remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings. (Id. at 11.) 1 1 The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 2 objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id.) The parties were 3 “advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 4 on appeal.” (Id.) (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014)). To date, 5 no objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 7 undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 8 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 9 analysis. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. 12 13 are adopted in full; 2. 14 15 16 17 The findings and recommendations issued on September 10, 2021 (Doc. No. 31) This matter is remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this order; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 29, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 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.
