Long v. Astrue
Filing
16
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the 14 Final Report and Recommendation. This action is REMANDED under Sentence Six to the Commissioner for further consideration of Appellant's claims consistent with this opinion and the Final Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 9/30/2013. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
LINDA LONG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
1:12-cv-3994-WSD
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant-Appellee.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge E. Clayton Scofield III’s
Final Report and Recommendation [14] (“R&R”) recommending remand of this
action to the Commissioner of Social Security under sentence six of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g).
I.
BACKGROUND
On February 6, 2013, Plaintiff-Appellant Linda Long (“Appellant”),
proceeding pro se, filed this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her disability
benefits. On June 7, 2013, the Commissioner filed her Motion for Remand
pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff did not oppose the Motion
for Remand.
On June 28, 2013, Magistrate Judge Scofield issued his R&R recommending
that the Motion for Remand be granted. Magistrate Judge Scofield found that a
remand is necessary because significant portions of the recording of Appellant’s
administrative hearing are inaudible, raising “considerable question” as to the
content of the testimony of the vocational expert.
Neither party filed an objection to the R&R.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (Supp. V 2011);
Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). A
district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If no party has objected to the report and recommendation,
a court conducts only a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714
F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
B.
Analysis
The parties do not object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings that a remand
2
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is necessary because portions of the administrative
hearing record were lost or are inaudible. The Court does not find plain error in
these findings. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (authorizing remand on motion of the
Commissioner for modification or affirmation of the record upon incorporation of
additional material evidence); Bivines v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 293, 295 (11th Cir.
1987) (noting that the district court remanded for another full hearing and review
of the entire record). The Court finds that this action should be remanded under
sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge E. Clayton Scofield
III’s Final Report and Recommendation [14] is ADOPTED. This action is
REMANDED to the Commissioner for further consideration of Appellant’s claims
consistent with this opinion and the Final Report and Recommendation.
SO ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2013.
3
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?