PETTY v. COLVIN et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on September 2, 2016. (cdw)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) Phillip T. Petty, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 14-cv-1883 (APM) ) Carolyn W. Colvin, ) Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________________ ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on August 8, 2016. R&R, ECF No. 21. The 14-day period during which the parties may file objections to the R&R has expired, see Local Civil Rule 72.3(b), and neither party has filed objections. Plaintiff Phillip T. Petty moved to have this matter remanded to the Social Security Administration for a new hearing. See Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 16. Defendant Colvin cross-moved for an order affirming the decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for supplemental security income payments. See Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 18. In a thorough R&R, Judge Kay recommended that the parties’ cross-motions be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, he recommended that the court remand the case so that the Social Security Administration “can properly address Plaintiff’s moderate mental limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace with respect to his [residual functional capacity] and the hypothetical. The remaining challenges concerning Plaintiff’s social functioning, credibility, and the need to sit and stand should be denied.” R&R at 24-25. After consideration of the R&R of Judge Kay, the absence of any party’s objection thereto, the entire record before the court, and the applicable law, the court will adopt Judge Kay’s R&R and grant in part and deny in part both parties’ Motions. A separate final order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Dated: September 2, 2016 Amit P. Mehta United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?