1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MERCY MONTOYA SALAS, Case No. CV 18-10414 JVS (AS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 v. CONCLUSIONS, AND 14 ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED of Social Security,1 15 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendant. 16

17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the 18 Complaint, all the records herein, and the attached Report and 19 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. After having 20 made a de novo determination of the portions of the Report and 21 Recommendation to which Objections were directed, the Court concurs 22 with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate 23 24 25 26 1 Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security, is 27 substituted for his predecessor. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 28 1 Judge. However, the Court addresses certain arguments raised in 2 the Objections below. 3 4 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, contends that she is “not 5 mentally stable” and has “become more unstable since 2001.” (Dkt. 6 No. 22 (“Objections”) at 2, 3).2 She asserts that her “ability to 7 work is false and inaccurate.” (Id. at 3). Plaintiff also contends 8 that due to “increased pain,” she cannot walk, bend, or “function 9 as so you say.” (Id. at 4). She does not, however, identify any 10 specific errors in the Report and Recommendation. (Id. at 1-6). 11 Instead, Plaintiff attaches over 120 pages of medical records to 12 her Objections, apparently in support of her contention that she 13 is incapable of fulltime work. (Id. at 7-130). 14 15 The records submitted by Plaintiff are not material. The 16 Court may remand a matter to the Commissioner if there is new 17 evidence which is “material” to a determination of disability and 18 Plaintiff shows “good cause” for having failed to produce that 19 evidence earlier. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). To be material, the new 20 evidence must bear “directly and substantially on the matter” at 21 issue, and there must be a “reasonable possibility that the new 22 evidence would have changed the outcome of the administrative 23 hearing.” Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 462 (9th Cir. 2001). 24 25 26

27 2 The Court cites to the Objections and its exhibits as if they were consecutively paginated. 28 1 Here, however, all of the records submitted with Plaintiff’s 2 Objections postdate the ALJ’s March 2018 decision by over one year. 3 (Objections at 7-130). As the Magistrate Judge admonished 4 Plaintiff in the Report and Recommendation, “[w]hile these records 5 may be relevant to a new SSI application, they are not material to 6 whether Plaintiff was disabled at any time between April 14, 2015, 7 the SSI application date, through March 28, 2018, the date of the 8 ALJ’s decision. (R&R at 32) (emphasis added); see Sanchez v. Sec’y 9 of Health & Human Servs., 812 F.2d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The 10 new evidence indicates, at most, mental deterioration after the 11 hearing, which would be material to a new application, but not 12 probative of his condition at the hearing.”); Kimbrough v. Shalala, 13 39 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The new evidence indicates only the 14 status of Kimbrough’s medical condition [after the relevant time 15 period], and as such, it is irrelevant.”). Thus, because the 16 medical records submitted by Plaintiff with her Objections are not 17 material, no remand is required. 18 19 // 20 21 // 22 23 // 24 25 26 27 28 1 IT IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered affirming the 2 || decision of the Commissioner and dismissing this action with 3 || prejudice. 4 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this 6 || Order and the Judgment herein on Plaintiff and counsel for 7 || Defendant. 8 9 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

10 [ Nf 1 DATED: October 15, 2019 U/ Neh / 12 ¥ 13 ————FaMES SELNA 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28