Weaver v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Filing 21

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 16 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 18 Motion for Summary Judgment; accepting and adopting Report and Recommendations re 20 Report and Recommendations. This action is REMANDED to the Administrative Law Judge. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 1/5/2015. (AML, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at KNOXVILLE
MICHAEL WEAVER,

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

Case No. 3:13-cv-713
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Guyton

ORDER
On December 4, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Guyton filed a
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Magistrate Judge Guyton 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 reconsider step five of the disability analysis.
Neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.1 Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the record in this matter, and
it agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned conclusions.
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Guyton’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
16) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; the Commissioner’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and

Magistrate Judge Guyton specifically advised Plaintiff that he 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. 20 at 27);
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”).

1

DENIED IN PART; and this action is REMANDED to the Administrative Law Judge
to reconsider step five of the disability analysis, namely whether work exists in the
national economy that accommodates Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity and
vocational factors.

SO ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2015.
/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2