Lynch v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 14 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; accepting and adopting 17 Report and Recommendations. The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for action consistent with this Order and the adopted Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 5/19/2015. (aws, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at WINCHESTER
CATHEY LYNCH,

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

Case No. 4:14-cv-20
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Lee

ORDER
On April 13, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed her Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 17) 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 Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) be denied in part to the extent that the Plaintiff seeks
an award of benefits and granted in part to the extent that Plaintiff seeks remand to the
Commissioner; (2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) be denied;
and (3) the Decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded.
Neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.1

Nevertheless,

the

Court

has

reviewed

the

Report

and

Recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Lee’s wellreasoned conclusions.

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 any rights to appeal. (Doc. 17 at 16
n.1); 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”). Even
taking into account the three additional days for service provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), the period in
which the parties could timely file objections has now expired.
1

Accordingly:
•

The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lee’s findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to § 636(b)(1)
and Rule 72(b);

•

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) is DENIED IN
PART and GRANTED IN PART;

•

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) is DENIED;

•

The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED
pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for action consistent with
this Order and the adopted Report and Recommendation.

SO ORDERED this 19th day of May, 2015.

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

2