Braggs v. Colvin
Filing
15
ORDER ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re granting in part and denying in part 9 Motion for Summary judgment, and denying 11 Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 09/05/2014. (JA)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
LAKESHIA BRAGGS
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-334-CWR-FKB
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
COMMISSIONER, U.S. SSA
DEFENDANT
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball [Docket No. 14], which was entered on August 22, 2014.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Report and Recommendation clearly notified the parties that
“failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation
contained within [the] report and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after being served
with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the
unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court.”
[Docket No. 14, at 9]. This Court, finding that there has been no submission of written
objections by any party, hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation as the order of this
Court. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 9] is, therefore, granted in part
and denied in part, and the Defendant’s Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner
[Docket No. 11] is denied. The Commissioner’s decision is vacated, and this matter is
“remanded for specific consideration of Listing 112.05(D) and further development of the record
as to the claimant’s intellectual functioning ability.” [Docket No. 14, at 7, 9].
SO ORDERED, this the 5th day of September, 2014.
s/Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?