NOONE v. COLVIN

Filing 15

ORDER THAT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. DEFENDANTS UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR REMAND (DOC. 12) IS GRANTED THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION IS REVERESED AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSI ONER PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. 405(g) FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR ALL PURPOSES INCLUDING STATISTICS.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 7/6/15. 7/8/15 ENTERED AND COPIES EMAILED.(rf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEBORAH L. NOONE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 15-251

ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of July, 2015, upon independent review of the brief in support of
review filed by Plaintiff (Docket No. 8), Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Remand (Docket
No. 12), 1 and the administrative record, and after careful consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter, it is hereby ORDERED
that:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. Defendant’s uncontested Motion for Remand (Docket No. 12) is GRANTED, the
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration is REVERSED,
and the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to Sentence Four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s
Report; and
3. The Clerk of the Court shall mark this case CLOSED for all purposes, including
statistics.
BY THE COURT:

S/Gene E.K. Pratter
GENE E.K. PRATTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1

Plaintiff filed a Brief and Statement of Issues in Support of Plaintiff’s Request for Review on May 14,
2015, seeking either an award of benefits for the period at issue or an order that the case be remanded for
further development and analysis of the record. On June 10, 2015, Defendant filed an uncontested motion
for remand arguing that the case would benefit from additional evaluation.