JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 8:25-cv-00389-FWS-SSC 11

12 MYNDI AMBER C.,1 ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 CONCLUSIONS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [19] 15 v. AND OVERRULING OBJECTIONS [20] 16 FRANK BISIGNANO,2 17 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINSTRATION, 18

19 Defendant. 20 21 /// 22 /// 23

24 1 Plaintiff’s name is partially redacted in accordance with Rule 5.2(c)(2)(B) of the 25 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the recommendation of the Committee on Court 26 Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States issued on May 1, 2018. 27 2 The Commissioner’s name has been updated in accordance with Rule 25(d) of the 28 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. Introduction and Relevant Procedural History

Before the court is the Magistrate Judge’s November 17, 2025, Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 19 (“Report and Recommendation”).) Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge, including each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein.

In summary, on February 28, 2025, Plaintiff Myndi Amber C. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security Administration (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”). (Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”).) On May 2, 2025, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint, that also included case records. (Dkt. 9. (“Answer).) On August 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Support of the Complaint. (Dkt. 12 (“Plaintiff’s Memorandum”).) On August 29, 2025, Defendant filed a Brief requesting the court to affirm the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. (Dkt. 16 (“Defendant’s Brief”).) On October 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of the Plaintiff’s Memorandum. (Dkt. 17 (“Reply”).) On November 17, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 19) On December 1, 2025, Petitioner objected to the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 20 (“Objections”).) II. Discussion “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (stating “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to,” and “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions”). Proper objections require “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” of the magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna- Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Where no objection has been made, arguments challenging a finding are deemed waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.”). Moreover, “[o]bjections to a R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.” Chith v. Haynes, 2021 WL 4744596, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 12, 2021). In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court issue an order:

(1) accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) directing 15 that Judgment be entered AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner. (Report and Recommendation at 10.) In the Objections, in summary, Plaintiff disagrees with the analysis and conclusions set forth in the Report and Recommendation, and Plaintiff requests that the case be “remand[ed] for further administrative proceedings, including a de novo hearing and decision.” (Objections at 2-6.) After conducting a de novo review of the Objections, the court agrees with each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Report and Recommendation, including each of the recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s arguments set forth in the Objections are OVERRULED on the merits. In sum, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed the record, including the Report and Recommendation, the Complaint, the Answer, Plaintiff’s Memorandum, Defendant’s Brief, the Reply, the Objections, and the other records of | the case. After conducting a de novo review of the Objections, the court concurs with | and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in the Report and | Recommendation. HI. Conclusion Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court | adopts the Report and Recommendation and accepts each of the findings of fact and | conclusions of law therein. Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Judgment is | entered AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner.

11 Dated: December 10, 2025 Hon. Fred W. Slaughter UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE