Robbins v. Colvin

Filing 16

ORDER approving 14 Memorandum and Recommendations; overruling Deft's 15 Objections to M&R; granting Pltf's 9 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Deft's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; reversing the decision of the Commissioner; and remanding this case for further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 9/04/2017. (ejb) Modified text on 9/5/2017. NEF regenerated. (ejb)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00275-MR-DLH

PHILIP MARK ROBBINS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. 9]; the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment

[Doc.

11];

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Memorandum

and

Recommendation regarding the disposition of those motions [Doc. 14]; and
the Defendant’s Objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc.
15].
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a specific Order of referral of the
District Court, the Honorable Dennis L. Howell, United States Magistrate
Judge, was designated to consider these pending motions in the above-

captioned action and to submit to this Court a recommendation for the
disposition of these motions.
On August 14, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered a Memorandum
and Recommendation [Doc. 14] in this case containing proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law in support of a recommendation regarding the
disposition of these motions [Docs. 9 and 11]. The parties were advised that
any

objections

to

the

Magistrate

Judge's

Memorandum

and

Recommendation were to be filed in writing within fourteen (14) days of
service. The Defendant timely filed her Objections on August 25, 2017 [Doc.
15].
After careful consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum
and Recommendation [Doc. 14] and the Defendant’s Objections thereto
[Doc. 15], the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of
fact are correct and that his proposed conclusions of law are consistent with
current case law. Accordingly, the Court hereby overrules the Defendant’s
Objections and accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the
Commissioner’s decision be reversed and that this case be remanded for
further proceedings.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and
Recommendation [Doc. 14] is ACCEPTED; the Defendant’s Objections
2

thereto [Doc. 15] are OVERRULED; the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. 9] is GRANTED; and the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. 11] is DENIED. Pursuant to the power of this Court to enter
a judgment affirming, modifying or reversing the decision of the
Commissioner under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the decision of
the Commissioner is REVERSED and this case is hereby REMANDED for
further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion.
A judgment shall be entered simultaneously herewith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: September 4, 2017

3