Bates v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Filing 17

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 15 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 7/2/14. (KFB, ) This action is hereby REMANDED to the Administrative Law Judge.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at KNOXVILLE
PATRICK RAY BATES,

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

Case No. 3:13-cv-507
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Shirley

ORDER
On May 5, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr. filed a
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Magistrate Judge Shirley recommended that (1)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part and denied in part; (2) the
Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part and denied in part;
and (3) this action be remanded to the Administrative Law Judge to:
reevaluate the Plaintiff’s credibility by explaining: (1) whether the Plaintiff
needs to elevate his legs or alternate between siting and standing during
an eight- hour workday and the reasons for such findings; (2) whether or
not this presents a limitation on the Plaintiff’s ability to perform sedentary
work; and (3) vocational testimony regarding the implications as to the
occupational base.
(Id. at 18).
Defendant has filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. 16). However, Defendant’s objections are merely reiterations
of the original arguments raised in her Motion for Summary Judgment. (Compare Doc.
14 at 4-9, 10-13 with Doc. 16 at 1-3). Further analysis of these same issues would be
cumulative and is unwarranted in light of Magistrate Judge Shirley’s well-reasoned and

well-supported Report and Recommendation, in which he fully addressed Defendant’s
arguments. Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a review of the record, specifically
including those portions to which Defendant has objected, and the Court agrees with
Magistrate Judge Shirley’s analysis and conclusions.
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Shirley’s
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and
Rule 72(b); Defendant’s Objections (Doc. 16) are OVERRULED; Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 11) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART; Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13) is hereby GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART; and this action is hereby REMANDED to the
Administrative Law Judge for the limited purpose of reevaluating Plaintiff’s credibility
and acquiring vocational expert testimony consistent with Judge Shirley’s Report and
Recommendation.

SO ORDERED this 2nd day of July, 2014.

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

2