Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02858/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02858-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAY MAULDIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social 

Security,

Defendant.

No. 2:18-cv-02858 WBS CKD

ORDER

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 

(“Commissioner”) denying an application for disability benefits under Title II of the Social 

Security Act (“Act”).

On January 29, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations 

were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendant has filed objections. The court has reviewed the 

file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the 

magistrate judge’s analysis. The court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that the 

administrative law judge did not specifically “identify the testimony that was not credible, and

specify what evidence undermines the claimant’s complaints.” See Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. 

Sec., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2014). The court further agrees with the magistrate 

Case 2:18-cv-02858-WBS-CKD Document 25 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

judge’s recommendation that the case be remanded for further proceedings because “the record as 

a whole creates serious doubt as to whether the claimant is, in fact, disabled within the meaning 

of the Social Security Act.” See Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1020 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14) is granted; 

2. The Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 17) is denied; and

3. This matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings and 

recommendations.

Dated: March 26, 2020

2/mauldin2858.jo_cjra

Case 2:18-cv-02858-WBS-CKD Document 25 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 2