Jackson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Filing 23

ORDER granting in part 18 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 20 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 22 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 10/26/2018. (BDG, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
CASSANDRA JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:17-cv-335
Judge Travis R. McDonough
Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee

ORDER

On October 9, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed her Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 22) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Lee recommended that:


Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 18) be 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.



Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 20) be DENIED.



Commissioner’s decision denying benefits be REVERSED AND
REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with Magistrate Judge
Lee’s report and recommendation.

Neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.1 Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a reviewed the Report and
Recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Lee’s
well-reasoned conclusions.
Accordingly:


Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 18) 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.



Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 20) is DENIED.



Commissioner’s decision denying benefits is REVERSED AND REMANDED
for further proceedings consistent with Magistrate Judge Lee’s report and
recommendation (Doc. 22).

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Travis R. McDonough
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Magistrate Judge Lee specifically advised Ms. Jackson that she had 14 days in which to object
to the Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive his right to appeal.
(Doc. 22, at 17 n.9); 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 Plaintiff could timely file any objections
has now expired.
2