Jenkins v. Colvin

Filing 21

ORDER denying without prejudice 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying without prejudice 16 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties shall refile their motions addressing their respective positions as to Mascio. Plaintiff shall file by 4/1/16. Defendant shall file by 4/15/16. Plaintiff shall file one Response/Reply by 4/29/16. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 3/21/16. (smj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
DOCKET NO. 5:15-cv-00010-FDW
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security )
)
Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
TERRI LEE JENKINS,

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties’ motions for summary judgment.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 14) and Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 16) 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 March 2, 2016
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
March 18, 2016.
(Doc. No. 19) (emphasis in original, footnote omitted).

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:
Pursuant to the Court’s Order filed on February 16, 2016, the
parties certify that they have discussed, in good faith, whether the
ruling in Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015), requires
sentence four remand. The parties disagree as to whether Mascio
requires remand. Regarding the Order’s provision for
supplemental briefing, the parties will not submit supplemental
briefs, unless the court requires them.
(Doc. No. 20) (emphasis added). The status report clearly conveys the parties disagreed but that
the “parties will not submit supplemental briefs, unless the court requires them.” 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 21, 2016

2