Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER denying 15 Motion to Affirm; adopting Report and Recommendations re 16 Report and Recommendations and Remanding case for further proceedings. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 7/2/2019 (wld)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALTON MARTIN

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY, Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 1:18cv167-HSO-RHW

DEFENDANT

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [16], DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION [15] TO
AFFIRM, AND REMANDING CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [16]
of United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker, entered in this case on June
14, 2019, and Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion [15] to Affirm.
Plaintiff Alton Martin seeks review of the final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security denying his claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the decision of the
Commissioner be reversed and remanded for further consideration.
After due consideration of the Report and Recommendation [16], the parties’
Briefs [10] [14], the Commissioner’s Motion [15], the Administrative Record [9], and
relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation should be adopted as the Order of the Court, the Commissioner’s
Motion [15] to Affirm should be denied, and the case should be remanded for further
1

administrative proceedings.
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff Alton Lee Martin (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint [1]
seeking the reversal of an administrative decision denying him disability benefits
and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. Compl. [1].
Alternatively, Plaintiff sought remand of the case for further proceedings. Id.
Pursuant to the Court’s briefing schedule, the parties filed briefs arguing their
positions. Order [3]. Plaintiff takes the position that the Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) failed to “properly evaluate the medical opinion evidence from the
Plaintiff’s treating physician.” Pl.’s Br. [10] at 10. Plaintiff argues that without
identifying any contradictory findings, the ALJ improperly gave only partial weight
to the treating physician’s opinion that Plaintiff would have four or more work
absences per month. Id. at 10-11 (citing Admin. Record [9] at 26). Plaintiff asserts
that as a result of this error, the ALJ’s finding that he maintained the residual
functional capacity to perform a full range of sedentary work is not supported by the
record. Id. at 12-13.
The Commissioner of Social Security, Nancy A. Berryhill (“the
Commissioner”) responds that the treating physician’s opinions were generally
consistent with an ability to perform sedentary work and that to the extent the
ALJ’s failure to accord the required weight to the treating physician’s specific
opinion regarding absences was erroneous, such error was harmless. Def.’s Br. [14]
at 6-8. After responding to Plaintiff’s brief, the Commissioner filed a Motion [15] to

2

Affirm asking the Court affirm her final decision. Mot. [15] to Affirm.
On June 14, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered the instant Report and
Recommendation [16] recommending that the Court reverse and remand the
Commissioner’s decision for further proceedings. R. & R. [16] at 7-8. On June 28,
2019, the Commissioner notified this Court that she did not intend to file any
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [16].
II. DISCUSSION
Where no party has objected to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings of fact
and recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) (“[A] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which
objection is made.”). In such cases, the Court applies the “clearly erroneous, abuse
of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review. United States v. Wilson, 864
F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
Having conducted the required review, the Court concludes that the
Magistrate Judge thoroughly considered all issues, and that the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation that the Court reverse and remand the decision to the
Commissioner for further consideration of its findings is neither clearly erroneous
nor contrary to law. R. & R. [16] at 1. As such, the Report and Recommendation
should be adopted as the opinion of the Court, and the decision of the Commissioner
should be reversed and remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for
further proceedings consistent with this Order and the Magistrate Judge’s Report

3

and Recommendation [16]. See Bordelon v. Barnhart, 161 F. App’x 348, 352 (5th
Cir. 2005) (holding case was properly remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) where the court provided legal reasons, vacated, and remanded case to the
Commissioner); Davis v. Colvin, 603 F. App’x 257, 259, 259 n.2 (5th Cir. 2015)
(holding same where district court reversed and remanded case).
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation [16] entered in this case on June 14, 2019, is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court, and Defendant’s Motion [15] to Affirm is
DENIED.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED to
the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Order and the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [16].
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 2nd day of July, 2019.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4