Sullivan v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying 19 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 22 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 23 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 1/7/15. (GRE, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at WINCHESTER
BAYLESS EUGENE SULLIVAN,

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

Case No. 4:13-cv-57
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Lee

ORDER
On December 19, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed a
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Lee recommended that (1) Plaintiff’s
Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 22) be granted in part to the extent that
it seeks remand to the Commissioner and denied in part to the extent it seeks an award
of benefits; (2) the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) be denied;
and (3) the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded pursuant to Sentence
Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Id. at 25-26).
Neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.1 Additionally, 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 Lee’s findings
of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment

Magistrate Judge Lee 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. 23 at 25); 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

(Doc. 22) is hereby GRANTED to the extent that it seeks remand to the Commissioner
and DENIED to the extent that it seeks an award of benefits; the Commissioner’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) is hereby DENIED; and the Commissioner’s
decision is hereby REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to Sentence Four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) for further evaluation.

SO ORDERED this 7th day of January, 2015.
/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2