TATE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 2:12-cv-2420-JAM-CMK. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20141028b61
Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. 405(g). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. On August 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may fi
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. 405(g). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. On August 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may fil..
More
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.
On August 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(c) AND Local Rule 304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed August 22, 2014, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 12, 22) is granted;
3. Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. 25) is denied;
4. This matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations; and
5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.
Source: Leagle
