Fay, II v. Colvin

Filing 18

ORDER denying without prejudice 9 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and 13 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties shall refile their motions thoroughly addressing their respective positions as to Mascio. Subsequent motions will comply with the local rules and Social SecurityBriefing Order. Plaintiff shall file on or before April 1, 2016. Defendant shall file on or before April 15, 2016. Plaintiff shall file one Response/Reply on or before April 29, 2016. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 03/1816. (emw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
DOCKET NO. 2:14-cv-00050-FDW
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security )
)
Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
JOHN L. FAY, II,

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties’ motions for summary judgment.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 9) and Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 13) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the following
reasons.
In the interest of completeness, the Court, sua sponte, directed the parties to discuss the
implications of Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015),1 and to file a status report and
supplemental briefing if the parties disagreed:
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte in light of Mascio
v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015), the parties are directed to
discuss, in good faith, whether the ruling in Mascio requires
sentence four remand pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for rehearing
or other administrative proceedings. The parties shall advise the
Court via Status Report to be filed on or before October 9, 2015
whether remand to the Commissioner of Social Security is
appropriate and certify that they have discussed Mascio and its
implications, if any, in this case. If the parties disagree as to whether
Mascio requires remand, the parties may file a supplement to their
summary judgment briefs, limited to 1,500 words, on or before
October 23, 2015.
(Doc. No. 16) (emphasis in original).

1

The mandate in Mascio issued on May 11, 2015, after the Administrative Record in this case was filed.

1

In response, the parties filed a Joint Status Report (Doc. No. 17):
[T]his Court directed the parties in this matter to consult and discuss
the implications of the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Mascio…, on this
case. The parties were directed to advise the Court, via Status
Report filed on or before October 9, 2015, as to whether the ruling
required remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and, if
not, whether either party requested supplemental briefing on
the issue.
The parties inform the Court:
1. The parties have conferred and discussed, in good faith, the
implications of the ruling in Mascio.
2. The parties disagree as to whether the ruling in Mascio is
implicated in this case. The parties will address this matter in
supplemental briefing as ordered by the Court.
(Doc. No. 17) (emphasis added). The status report clearly conveys the parties disagreed
and that the “parties will address this matter in supplemental briefings….” However, no additional
briefings were submitted to address their disagreement on the application or implications of
Mascio.

The parties misconstrued the Court’s order and expected the Court to request

supplemental briefings again instead of simply availing themselves of the existing opportunity.
Unfortunately, the Court cannot read the parties’ minds regarding the implications of
Mascio when deciding the pending motions for summary judgment.
Consequently, the Court denies the motions for summary judgment WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

The parties shall refile their motions thoroughly addressing their respective

positions as to Mascio. Subsequent motions will comply with the local rules and Social Security
Briefing Order. Plaintiff shall file on or before April 1, 2016. Defendant shall file on or before
April 15, 2016. Plaintiff shall file one Response/Reply on or before April 29, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: March 18, 2016

2