Melton v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Filing 16

JUDGMENT ORDER granting in part 6 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 10 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting in part Report and Recommendations re 12 Report and Recommendations. The Commissioner's decision de nying benefits is REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 USC 405(g) for reconsideration and further factual development regarding plaintiff's valid IQ scores by a different Administrative Law Judge. Signed by District Judge Curtis L Collier on 9/28/10. (JGK, )

Melton v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Doc. 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA ROBBIE MELTON, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 1:09-CV-190 Judge Curtis L. Collier

JUDGMENT ORDER Plaintiff Robbie Melton ("Plaintiff") brought this action pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner" or "Defendant") denying Plaintiff a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423. Plaintiff moved for judgment on the

pleadings (Court File No. 6), and Defendant moved for summary judgment (Court File No. 10). United States Magistrate Judge William B. Carter, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and in accordance with Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Court File No. 12) recommending the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed, Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted, and Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied. Plaintiff timely filed an objection to the R&R (Court File No. 13) and the Commissioner timely filed a response to the objection (Court File No. 14). After reviewing the record, this the Court hereby ACCEPTS IN PART and REJECTS IN PART the magistrate judge's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations (Court File No. 12). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

Dockets.Justia.com

(1) (2) (3)

Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Court File No. 6) is GRANTED IN PART; The Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Court File No. 10) is DENIED; and The Commissioner's decision denying benefits is REVERSED and REMANDED, pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for reconsideration and further factual development regarding Plaintiff's valid IQ scores by a different Administrative Law Judge.

SO ORDERED. ENTER: /s/ CURTIS L. COLLIER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE