Gaines v. Colvin
ORDER: granting 8 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 15 Report and Recommendations. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, ECF No. 11, and Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, ECF No. 8. The decision of the Commissioner is VACATED and REMANDED for further review. Copy of this Order provided to both parties. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 1/20/2017. (bgra)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
JAN 2 3 20!?
CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COL IT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-549
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of the Social
Before the Court is Plaintiff Ronald Gaines's action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking
judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
("Commissioner") that denied his claim for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits,
and disabled widower's benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. On February 23, 2016,
this matter was referred to United Slates Magistrate Judge Robert J. Krask ("Magistrate Judge
Krask") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for a report and recommendation. ECF No. 6.
On March 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 8. On
April 27, 2016, the Commissioner filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 11. On
December 22, 2016, Magistrate Judge Krask filed his report and recommended that the
Commissioner's motion be denied, that Plaintiffs motion be granted, and that the
Commissioner's decision be vacated and remanded for further proceedings. ECFNo, 18. By
copy of the report, cach party was advised of their right to file written objections to the findings
and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge within 14 days from the date of the mailing
of the report.
The Court has received no objections to the report, and the time for filing the same has
expired. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo
review, but instead must 'only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.'"
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R,
Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee's Note). Findingno clear error, the Court does hereby accept
the findings and recommendations set forth in the report and recommendations of Magistrate
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, ECF No. 11, and Plaintiffs
Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, ECF No. 8. The decision of the Commissioner
is VACATED and REMANDED for further review. The Cleric is DIRECTED to provide a
copy of this Order to both parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Raymond A. Jai
United states District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?