Byrd v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 18 Report and Recommendations as the finding of this Court; and this action is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the Court's Order. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 2/18/21. (RLW)

Case 1:19-cv-00574-HSO-RPM Document 19 Filed 02/18/21 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRITNEY ANN BYRD
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY

§
§
§
§
§
§

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 1:19-cv-574-HSO-JCG
DEFENDANT

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [18] AND REMANDING CASE TO THE
COMMISSIONER
BEFORE THE COURT is United States Magistrate Judge Robert P. Myers’s
Report and Recommendation [18], which recommends remanding this case for
further proceedings. After due consideration of the Report and Recommendation
[18], the record, and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation [18] should be adopted and that this case
should be remanded to the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security for further
proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Britney Ann Byrd (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action
under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the denial by Defendant
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) of her application for disability
insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act. Compl. [1].
Plaintiff filed her DIB claim on September 12, 2016, when she was 34 years old,
asserting that she became disabled on January 25, 2012, and was last insured on

Case 1:19-cv-00574-HSO-RPM Document 19 Filed 02/18/21 Page 2 of 3

September 30, 2012. Administrative R. [13] at 207, 221. She was previously
employed as a cashier, receptionist, and tax preparer. Id. at 227. Plaintiff claimed
that she suffered from five (5) medical conditions that prevented her from working:
(1) fibromyalgia; (2) depression; (3) anxiety; (4) joint pain; and (5) ADHD. Id. at 226.
The Social Security Administration (the “Administration”) denied Plaintiff’s
application initially and on reconsideration. Id. at 173, 178-86. After a hearing held
on August 16, 2018, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied her claim on the
grounds that Plaintiff did not suffer from any “severe impairments.” Id. at 20-21.
Plaintiff submitted additional medical records and appealed the ALJ’s decision to
the Appeals Council, which denied her request for review and the appeal itself
because there was no “reasonable probability” that the additional records would
change the ALJ’s decision. Id. at 5. Plaintiff then filed a Complaint in this Court on
September 12, 2019. Compl. [1].
On January 29, 2021, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and
Recommendation [18], recommending that the Court remand the case for further
findings by the Commissioner. R. & R. [18] at 9. The Report and Recommendation
concluded that “no fact finder has made findings on the record” about Plaintiff’s
additional medical records, “which seriously, but not overwhelmingly, conflict with
the ALJ’s conclusion” regarding Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia. Id. Because the “Court
would be required to resolve these conflicts and engage in fact-finding,” a task for
the Commissioner, the Magistrate Judge recommended remanding the case for
2

Case 1:19-cv-00574-HSO-RPM Document 19 Filed 02/18/21 Page 3 of 3

further proceedings. Id. Neither party has filed any Objections to the Report and
Recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed. Id. at 9-10.
II.

DISCUSSION

Because neither party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation [18], the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). The Court need only review the Report and Recommendation [18] and
determine whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,
864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). Having conducted the required review, the Court
finds that the Report and Recommendation [18] is neither clearly erroneous nor
contrary to law and that it should be adopted as the finding of the Court. This case
should be remanded for further proceedings and findings by the Commissioner.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation [18], entered in this case on January 29, 2021,
is ADOPTED as the finding of this Court.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, this action is
REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings
consistent with the Court’s Order.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 18th day of February, 2021.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden

HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3