(SS) Madrigal v. Commissioner of Social Security

I. INTRODUCTION

19 Plaintiff Ernedina Madrigal, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against Martin 20 O’Malley, the Commissioner of Social Security, (the “Defendant” or the “Commissioner”) by 21 filing a complaint on April 8, 2024. (Doc. 1). Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss 22 (Doc. 11) on June 10, 2024. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, and the time to do so has 23 passed. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). The matter is therefore deemed unopposed. Id. 24 The motion is currently before the Court on the parties’ briefs, which were submitted, 25 without oral argument, to the Honorable Sheila K. Oberto, United States Magistrate Judge. For 26 the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 27 1 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. (Doc. 11) be GRANTED. II. LEGAL STANDARD A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted “tests the legal sufficiency of a claim,” and dismissal is “proper if there is a ‘lack of a…