Williams v. Colvin
General Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 1/27/17. (wwp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
CASE NO. ________________________
GENERAL ORDER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b) and this Court's Local Rule
72.3(a), this appeal from the final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security denying plaintiff's claim for Social Security benefits
has been referred to the Magistrate Judge for review and
recommendation as to disposition.
Upon the filing of the defendant’s answer and certified copy of
the transcript of the administrative proceedings, briefing shall
conform to the following schedule:
(1) Within thirty days from the filing of the Answer and
administrative record, plaintiff shall serve and file a brief
setting forth all errors which plaintiff contends entitle the
plaintiff to relief.
Within forty-five days after service of plaintiff's brief,
defendant shall serve and file a brief which responds
specifically to each issue raised by plaintiff.
Plaintiff may file a brief in reply to the brief of
defendant within fifteen days of service of defendant's brief.
Plaintiff’s brief shall contain under the appropriate headings
and in the order here indicated:
(a) A statement of the issues presented for review, set forth
in separate numbered paragraphs.
(b) A statement of the case. This statement should indicate
briefly the course of the proceedings and its disposition at the
administrative level and should set forth a general statement of
the facts. This statement of facts shall include plaintiff's age,
education, and work experience; a summary of physical and
mental impairments alleged; a brief outline of the medical
evidence; and a brief summary of other evidence of record.
Each statement of fact shall be supported by reference to the
page in the record where the evidence may be found.
The argument shall be divided into
sections separately treating each issue and must set forth the
contentions of plaintiff with respect to the issues presented
and reasons therefor. Each contention must be supported by
specific reference to the portion of the record relied upon and
by citations to statutes, regulations, and cases supporting
CM/ECF citations are encouraged.
Citations to unreported appellate or district court opinions
must be accompanied by a copy of the opinion if the case is
unavailable on Westlaw.
A short conclusion stating the relief sought.
The issues before the Court are limited to the issues properly
raised in the briefs.
Defendant's brief shall conform to the requirements set forth
above for plaintiff's brief, except that a statement of the issues and
a statement of the case need not be made unless defendant is
dissatisfied with plaintiff’s statement thereof.
Arguments in the briefs should be short and succinct, citing by
Inasmuch as this circuit has formulated a fair body of law in social
security cases, citations to Eleventh and former Fifth Circuit
decisions will be expected.
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d
1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981).
CITE CASES FROM OTHER
CIRCUITS ONLY WHERE THERE IS NO ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUTHORITY OR IF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS CIRCUIT'S
BRIEFS FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THIS
DIRECTIVE WILL BE DEEMED NONRESPONSIVE AND MAY BE
RETURNED BY THE COURT.
Requests for remand must strictly comply with the provisions
of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g).
Remands should be designated as either
"sentence four" or "sentence six" remands.
501 U.S. 89 (1991).
Melkonyan v. Sullivan,
Counsel are advised to read the discussion
of remands set forth in Newsome v. Shalala, 8 F.3d 775 (11th Cir.
Any requests for remand not clearly designated as
proceeding under one or the other sentence will be deemed vague
The opposing party shall promptly make known
its opposition or acquiescence to any request for remand.
Let a copy of this Order be served upon counsel for the
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?