Pitts v. Social Security Administration

Filing 22

ORDER by Judge Frank H. Seay sustaining 20 Report and Recommendation which reverses and remands the decision of the ALJ (dma, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA LATERESA GAIL PITTS, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIV-15-179-FHS-SPS ORDER On August 31, 2016, the United States Magistrate Judge for this District filed a Report and Recommendation in this case. On September 14, 2016, Defendant filed on Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not raise the issues which the Magistrate argued needed further evaluation. Further, Defendant argues that further evaluation of the issues will not change the outcome. First, the court finds that the Plaintiff adequately addressed the issues on which the Magistrate Judge remanded the case. The court overrules the Defendant’s Objection. The Report and Recommendation suggests that the case be REVERSED AND REMANDED for further administrative proceeding. This Court finds the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge applied the proper standards and documents numerous references to the record which support the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the Secretary's decision be REVERSED AND REMANDED. Upon consideration of the entire record and the issues herein, this Court finds and orders that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge be SUSTAINED and adopted by this Court as this Court's Findings and Order. Accordingly, this case is REVERSED AND REMANDED to the defendant under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. §405(g) for proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of September, 2016.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?