From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Griffieth v. Kijakazi

United States District Court, Central District of California
Apr 13, 2023
2:22-cv-02749-SSS-PVC (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2023)

Opinion

2:22-cv-02749-SSS-PVC

04-13-2023

VINCENT A. GRIFFIETH, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


JUDGMENT

HON. PEDRO V. CASTILLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Having approved the parties' Stipulation to Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and to Entry of Judgment, THE COURT ADJUDGES AND DECREES that judgment is entered for Plaintiff.

In Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015), the Ninth Circuit held that the magistrate judge had the authority to grant Petitioner's request to dismiss two unexhausted claims in his habeas petition without the approval of a district judge, as the magistrate judge's order was simply “doing what [the] habeas petitioner has asked.” Id. at 1165. While Bastidas is not entirely on point, the stipulation for remand and entry of judgment here is jointly made by the parties, without any compulsion from the magistrate judge. Because there appears to be no danger of undue prejudice to any party, the Court grants the request.


Summaries of

Griffieth v. Kijakazi

United States District Court, Central District of California
Apr 13, 2023
2:22-cv-02749-SSS-PVC (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2023)
Case details for

Griffieth v. Kijakazi

Case Details

Full title:VINCENT A. GRIFFIETH, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner…

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Apr 13, 2023

Citations

2:22-cv-02749-SSS-PVC (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2023)