Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00192/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00192-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Sarah Jane Thomas
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Sarah Jane Thomas initiated this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security, which terminated her supplemental security income. (Doc. 1.) 

The magistrate judge determined “the ALJ’s finding of medical improvement is not supported by 

substantial evidence.” (Doc. 18 at 10.) The magistrate judge found this also “calls into question 

the subsequent steps of the sequential analysis including whether the assessed RFC and step five 

findings are supported by substantial evidence.” (Id. at 11.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 

recommended the matter be remanded for further proceedings, for the ALJ to “revaluate medical 

improvement,” “conduct a new sequential analysis, reassess Plaintiff’s RFC and, if necessary, 

SARAH JANE THOMAS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN O’MALLEY,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:24-cv-0192 JLT HBK

ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, AND REMANDING FOR 

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 

SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

ORDER DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 

IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SARAH JANE 

THOMAS AND AGAINST DEFENDANT 

MARTIN O’MALLEY, COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY

(Docs. 14, 16, 18)

Case 1:24-cv-00192-JLT-HBK Document 19 Filed 11/26/24 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

take additional testimony from a vocational expert which includes all of the limitations credited 

by the ALJ.” (Id. at 12.) Thus, the magistrate judge also recommended Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment be granted, the Commissioner’s request to affirm be denied, and judgment be 

entered in favor of Plaintiff. (Id.) 

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 

any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 18 at 12.) The Court also advised the parties the 

“failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on 

appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) No objections 

were filed, and the time to do so has passed. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 

are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 8, 2024 (Doc. 18), are

ADOPTED in full.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 14) is GRANTED.

3. Defendant’s request to affirm the administrative decision (Doc. 16) is DENIED.

4. The administrative decision is reversed, and the matter is REMANDED pursuant 

to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceeding.

5. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Sarah Jane Thomas, 

and against Defendant Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security, and to 

close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00192-JLT-HBK Document 19 Filed 11/26/24 Page 2 of 2