(SS) Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:2018cv02415 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 4/13/2020 ADOPTING in full 25 Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff's 17 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and the Commissioner's 24 cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED. This matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor. CASE CLOSED (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERESA DIANE DAVIS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. No. 2:18-cv-2415-WBS–KJN ORDER (ECF Nos. 17, 24, 25) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. 16 17 On March 24, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18 25), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were 20 filed. 21 Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 22 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 23 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 24 1983). 25 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 26 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 27 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1 1 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 25) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2 2. The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 24) is DENIED; 3 3. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED; 4 4. This matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings; and 5 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and close the 6 7 case. Dated: April 13, 2020 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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.