Williford v. Colvin

Filing 16

ORDER that Deft shall file a reply brief as discussed in this Order on or before August 7, 2015 to Pltf's 15 Response in Opposition to 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment - Social Security . ( Replies due by 12/7/2015). Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 7/27/15. (ejb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-254-GCM-DCK
ANDREW L. WILLIFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT sua sponte regarding the briefing for the
pending summary judgment motions. This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully
considered the motions and the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will direct
Defendant to file a reply brief.
“Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Summary
Judgment” (Document No. 15) was filed on May 29, 2015. In response, Plaintiff suggests that the
Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015) supports his
original assignment of error, and Plaintiff further contends that Mascio “implicates a new issue in
this case.” (Document No. 15, pp. 1, 5). Plaintiff then argues for the first time that the ALJ failed
to properly account for his limitations in concentration, persistence and pace. (Document No. 15,
pp.5-6) (quoting Mascio, 780 F.3d at 638).
The undersigned observes that the Court’s “Social Security Briefing Order” 3:13-mc-198FDW, (Document No. 1, p.3) directs that a response “shall be limited to five pages and may only
address issues raised for the first time in the Commissioner’s Motion and Memorandum.” As such,

it appears that Plaintiff has improperly raised a new issue in his “…Response…” (Document No.
15). Nevertheless, in this instance, the undersigned will order Defendant to file a reply brief
addressing the arguments in “Plaintiff’s Response…” (Document No. 15), including a discussion
on the implications of Mascio in this case.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendant shall file a reply brief as discussed
herein on or before August 7, 2015.

Signed: July 27, 2015

2