Valentine v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT (1) DEFENDANTS MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) (DOC. 16 ) BE DENIED; AND (2) THIS CASE REMAIN TERMINATED ON THE COURTS DOCKET. Objections to R&R due by 9/10/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 08/24/2012. (kf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
WILLIAM C. VALENTINE,

:

Case No. 3:10-cv-470

:

District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

:

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT (1) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) (DOC. 16) BE
DENIED; AND (2) THIS CASE REMAIN TERMINATED ON THE COURT’S DOCKET

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s motion to alter or amend judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (doc. 16) 2 and Plaintiff’s response thereto (doc. 17).
Defendant challenges the Court’s Decision and Entry adopting the undersigned’s Report and
Recommendation (doc. 10), entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff, reversing the
Commissioner’s decision, and remanding the case to the Commissioner for an award of
Supplemental Security Income benefits. Doc. 13.
“A motion under Rule 59(e) is not an opportunity to re-argue a case.” Sault Ste. Marie
Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998). The Court may alter a
judgment based on (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening

1

Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation.
Defendant’s motion was timely filed within the 28-day deadline. This motion could also be construed
as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). See Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publ’g,
LLC, 477 F.3d 393, 395 (6th Cir. 2007). Regardless of how this motion is construed, the Court’s
analysis nonetheless remains the same – that the motion should be denied.
2

change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice. Leisure Caviar, LLC v.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2010).
Defendant’s argument – that the Court committed “clear legal error” in awarding benefits
instead of remanding the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings – is unavailing.
Defendant essentially disagrees with the Court’s interpretation of the facts in this case, rather
than truly complaining of a “clear legal error.” The law is clear that the Court has the authority
to remand for an immediate award of Social Security disability benefits when “all essential
factual issues have been resolved and the record adequately establishes a plaintiff’s entitlement
to benefits.” See Faucher v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 17 F.3d 171, 176 (6th Cir. 1994);
Mowery v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 966, 973 (6th Cir. 1985).

As more fully discussed in the

undersigned’s Report and Recommendation, such is the case here. See doc. 10.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1.

Defendant’s motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) (doc. 16) be DENIED; and

2.

This case remain TERMINATED on the Court’s docket.

s/ Michael J. Newman

August 24, 2012

United States Magistrate Judge

2

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being
served with this Report and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is
extended to SEVENTEEN days because this Report is being served by one of the methods of
service listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(B)(C), or (D) and may be extended further by the Court
on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report
objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If
the Report and Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record
at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record,
or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient,
unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party=s
objections within FOURTEEN days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make
objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v.
Walters, 638 F. 2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

3