Berry v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Filing 18

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 14 Motion for Summary Judgment; accepting and adopting 17 Report and Recommendations. The decision of the Commissioner is hereby REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to address the issues outlined in Magistrate Judge Lee's Report and Recommendation 17 . Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 5/16/2016. (aws, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
BRENDA MICHELLE BERRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:15-cv-201
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Lee

ORDER
On April 18, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed her Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 17) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Lee recommended that (1) Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. 11) be granted in part and denied in part; (2) Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) be denied; and (3) the decision of the
Commissioner be reversed and remanded pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g).
The Parties have filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.1 Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a review of the Report and
Recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Lee’s wellreasoned conclusions.
Magistrate Judge Lee specifically advised the Parties that they had 14 days in which to object to the
Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive their right to appeal. (Doc. 17 at 15
n.6); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (noting that “[i]t
does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings”). Even
taking into account the three additional days for service provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), the period in
which the Parties could timely file any objections has now expired.
1

Accordingly:


The Court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lee’s
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations (Doc. 17)
pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b);



Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 11) is hereby GRANTED
IN PART to the extent it seeks remand to the Commissioner and
DENIED IN PART to the extent it seeks an award of benefits;



Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) is hereby DENIED;



The decision of the Commissioner is hereby REVERSED and
REMANDED pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to address
the issues outlined in Magistrate Judge Lee’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 17).

SO ORDERED this 16th day of May, 2016.

/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE