Doyle v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Filing 17

ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings 12 ; denying defendant's motion for summary judgment 14 ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 16 ;The Commissioner's de cision denying plaintiff's claim to benefits is hereby REVERSED and REMANDED for further action consistent with this Order and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation;The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 10/10/2012. (AWH, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at GREENEVILLE
CHRISTOPHER DOYLE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
Defendant.
)
)

Case No. 2:11-cv-371
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Lee

ORDER
On September 21, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed a
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) 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 Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 12) be granted in part (to the extent it
seeks remand of the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits) and denied in part (to
the extent it seeks an award of benefits); Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 14) be denied; and the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits be reversed and
remanded pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
No party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.1
Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the record and the Report and Recommendation,
and it agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned conclusions.
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lee’s Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 16), findings of fact, and conclusions of law. Plaintiff’s

1 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. 16 at 21
n.7); 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”).

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 12) is GRANTED IN PART, insofar as it
seeks remand of Plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
(Doc. 12) is DENIED IN PART, insofar as it moves for an award of benefits.
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) is DENIED.
Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner’s decision
denying Plaintiff’s claim to benefits is hereby REVERSED and REMANDED for
further action consistent with this Order and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

SO ORDERED this 10th day of October, 2012.

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

2