1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LINDA TURNER, Case No. CV 24-5507-MRA(E)

12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, v.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

14

MARTIN O’MALLEY, OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 Commissioner of Social Security,

16 Defendant. 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended 19 Complaint, all of the records herein and the attached Report and Recommendation of 20 United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of 21 those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which any objections have been 22 made. 23 The Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommends the dismissal of this 24 action without prejudice because Plaintiff’s claims are still pending before the agency. 25 (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff’s response to the Report (ECF No. 32), liberally construed as 26 objections, do not warrant a change to the Report’s findings or recommendations. 27 Plaintiff “seeks immediate action” by this Court regarding her claims for benefits. 28 1 |} (ECF No. 32 at 1.) As the Report found, however, Plaintiff is not entitled to mandamus 2 || relief because her “claims are not clear or certain, and there is no showing that the 3 || [Social Security Administration] violated a plainly proscribed, nondiscretionary duty. 4 || Further, the administrative review of Plaintiff's claims (as to which there is no deadline 5 || for completion) is ongoing and, thus, Plaintiff has not exhausted her administrative 6 || remedies.” (ECF No. 31 at 7.) 7 Plaintiff relatedly argues that, despite her compliance with agency requirements, 8 || she has been met with “unnecessary delays” and “lack of action,” which have caused 9 || hardship. (ECF No. 32 at 2-3.) As the Report found, however, federal courts cannot 10 || properly impose mandatory deadlines for the Social Security Administration to act on 11 || disputed claims. (ECF No. 31 at 7 (citing Heckler v. Day, 467 U.S. 104, 117-19 (1984)). 12 Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to “benefits and retroactive benefits following 13 || the favorable [resolution] of her case.” (ECF No. 32 at 4.) As the Report found, 14 || however, there is no final agency resolution to review because these claims are still 15 || before the agency. (ECF No. 31 at 5.) “Because Plaintiff has not completed the four- 16 || step review process, she is not entitled to judicial review.” (/d. (citing authorities)). 17 The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 18 || Recommendation. 19 IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted; (2) the First 20 |} Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend and without prejudice; and (3) 21 || Judgment shall be entered accordingly. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve forthwith a copy of this Order 23 || and the Judgment of this date on Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant. 24 DATED: March 25, 2025. . □ pris hk. AC— 26 M@NICA RAMIREZ ALMADANI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28