Miller v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Filing 14

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleading 9 ; denying defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 11 adopting Report and Recommendations re 13 ; Pursuant to Sentence Six 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. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 11/20/2013. (AWH, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at GREENEVILLE
MICHAEL L. MILLER,

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

Case No. 2:12-cv-414
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Lee

ORDER
On July 8, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed her Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 13) 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. 9) 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. 11) be denied;
and the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits be reversed and remanded pursuant
to Sentence Six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Defendant has filed no objections 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. 13), 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. 13 at 20
n.5); 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. 9) is GRANTED IN PART, insofar as it
seeks remand of Plaintiff’s claim, and DENIED IN PART, insofar as it moves for an
award of benefits. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 11) is DENIED.
Pursuant to Sentence Six 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.

SO ORDERED this 20th day of November, 2013.

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

2