Crisp v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Filing 19

JUDGMENT ORDER granting 13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to the extent it seeks remand under Sentence Four of 42 USC 405(g) and denying 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 18 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Curtis L Collier on 5/14/12. (JGK, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
CURTIS R. CRISP
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL S. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-CV-205
Collier/Carter

JUDGMENT ORDER
Plaintiff Curtis R. Crisp (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Michael S. Astrue, Social Security
Commissioner (“Defendant”), seeking judicial review of Defendant’s decision denying her
supplemental security income benefits. On April 23, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge William
B. Mitchell Carter filed a report and recommendation (“R&R”) in this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (Court File No. 18). In the R&R, Judge Carter recommended:
1) Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Court File No. 13) seeking reversal be denied
in part and granted to the extent it seeks remand under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 2)
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Court File No. 15) be denied; and 3) Defendant’s
decision denying benefits be reversed and remanded under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) in order for the
Administrative Law Judge a) to make a more complete review of the entire administrative record
by seeking a legible copy of the medical record from Dr. Solomon; and b) obtain the opinion of a
state agency psychologist after a review of Plaintiff’s entire medical record, including the reports
of Dr. Zeigler and Dr. Solomon. Neither party has objected to the R&R within the given 14 days.
After reviewing the record, this Court agrees with the R&R. The Court hereby ACCEPTS
and ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Court File No.
13) to the extent it seeks remand under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and DENIES
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Court File No. 15).

The Court REVERSES

Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and REMANDS the
case to Defendant for review consistent with Judge Carter’s R&R (Court File No. 18).
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
/s/
CURTIS L. COLLIER
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE