govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00025-2

1 
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 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
 
On January 5, 2024, Plaintiff Lisa Yolanda Schroeder (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint seeking 
judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner” or 
“Defendant”) denying her application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under the Social 
Security Act (the “Act”) . (Doc. 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. 
On May 21, 2026 , t he assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 
recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied and the final decision of the 
Commissioner be affirmed . (Doc. 19.) The magistrate judge recommended that the decision be 
 
1 On May 6, 2025, Frank Bisignano was appointed the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. 
See https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/#2025-05-07. He is therefore substituted as the defendant in 
this action. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (referring to the “Commissioner’s Answer”); 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(d) (“the 
person holding the Office of the Commissioner shall, in his official capacity, be the proper defendant”). 
LISA YOLANDA SCHROEDER, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
FRANK BISIGNANO, 
Commissioner of Social Security,1 
Defendant. 
 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
Case No.: 1:24-cv-00025 WBS SKO 
 
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS 
AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 
THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 
JUDGMENT BE DENIED AND THE FINAL 
DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF 
SOCIAL SECURITY BE AFFIRMED 
 
 
(Docs. 12, 19) 
 

 
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 
 
affirmed because the ALJ properly relied on evidence in the record that undermined the credibility of 
Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling symptoms and limitations. (See id.) 
The parties were granted fourteen days from the date of service to file any objections to the 
findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. (Doc. 19 at 1, 16 .) In addition, the parties 
were “advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 
district judge’s order.” (Id. at 16, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014)). On 
June 4, 2026, Plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. 20.) Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge 
made the same mistake in her findings and recommendations that the Ninth Circuit rejected in Lambert 
v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266 , 1278 (9th Cir. 2020). However, the magistrate judge distinguished Lambert, 
pointing out that the Ninth Circuit there held that its “cases do not require ALJs to perform a line -by-
line exegesis of the claimant’s testimony, nor do they require ALJs to draft dissertations when denying 
benefits.” Id. at 1277. (Doc. 19 at 10-11.) 
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United 
School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 
Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds the findings and 
recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Based upon the foregoing, the 
Court ORDERS: 
1. The findings and recommendations filed May 21, 2026 (Doc. 19) are ADOPTED IN 
FULL; 
2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 12) is DENIED; 
3. The final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED; and 
4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Frank 
Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, and against Plaintiff Lisa Yolanda 
Schroeder, and to CLOSE this action. 
Dated: June 5, 2026 
 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight