Griggs v. Berryhill

Filing 18

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: The Court recommends that the District Court grant the Commissioner's 17 Motion to Remand, and remand this case for further administrative proceedings as requested. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford on 4/19/2018) (ran)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
RHONDA LASHAWN GRIGGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy
Commissioner for Operations of the
Social Security Administration, 1
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 3:17-CV-3460-C (BT)

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for
pretrial management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Before the Court is Defendant
Nancy A. Berryhill, Deputy Commissioner for Operations of the Social Security
Administration’s Motion to Remand [ECF No. 17]. In this motion, the Deputy
Commissioner asks the Court to remand this case under the fourth sentence of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), “for further administrative action, including a new decision.” See
Mot. 1-2. The Deputy Commissioner states in the Certificate of Conference that
her counsel conferred with counsel for Plaintiff Rhonda Lashawn Griggs, and that
Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion to Remand. See Mot. 4. Therefore, the Court
recommends that the District Court grant the Commissioner’s Motion to

Nancy A. Berryhill returned to her position as the Deputy Commissioner for
Operations of the Social Security Administration in November of 2017. See
https://www.ssa.gov/agency/commissioner.html.

1

1

Remand, and remand this case for further administrative proceedings as
requested.
SO RECOMMENDED.
April 19, 2018.
_______________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings,
conclusions, and recommendation on the parties. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions, and
recommendation must serve and file written objections within fourteen days after
service. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings,
conclusions, or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District
Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory, or general objections. A party’s
failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation shall bar that party from a de novo determination by the
District Court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Additionally, any
failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation within fourteen days after service shall bar the aggrieved party
from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge
that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en
banc).

2