Idlett v. Colvin et al

Filing 20

FINAL ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed on May 5, 2017. Therefore, the Commissioner's Motion to Remand (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED, and t he Commissioner's decision on Idlett's claim is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the Acting Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to sentence four of Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10) is DENIED AS MOOT. Copies of Order sent as DIRECTED on 5.31.17. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 5/30/2017 and filed on 5/31/2017. (epri)

Download PDF
UNITED THE STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT FLED OF VIRG] Newport News Division MAY 3 1 2017 CLERK. US DISTRICT COURT PAMELA DENISE IDLETT, NORFOLK, VA Plaintiff, V ACTION NO. . NANCY A. 4:16cvl34 BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. FINAL ORDER Plaintiff, Pamela Denise Idlett {"Idlett"), brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) , seeking judicial review of a decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") denying her claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and (C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as Rule 72 of the Rules of the United States D i s t r i c t Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The Report Magistrate Judge was filed on May 5, and 2017, Recommendation of the recommending that the district court grant the Commissioner's motion to remand to the Social Security Administration (ECPNo. 12), that the Commissioner' s decision on Idlett's claim be vacated, and that the case be remanded to the Acting Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to sentence four of Section 4 05 (g) of the Social Security Act, 42U.S.C. § 4 05(g). It was further recommended that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 10) be denied as moot. By copy of the Report and Recommendation, each party was advised of the right to file written objections to the findings and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff filed her Objection Recommendation Remand, to Magistrate ECF No. 19, Judge's on May 12, Report 2017. and for Defendant did not file a response to Plaintiff's objections. Following a ^ Recommendation, novo review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and and the objections filed thereto, and finding no error, the Court ADOPTS the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed on May 5, 2017. to Remand (ECF No. 12) Therefore, the Commissioner's Motion is GRANTED, and the Commissioner's decision on Idlett's claim is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the Acting Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to sentence four of Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the Appeals Council should send the case back to an Administrative Law Judge for further administrative proceedings consistent with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Further, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10) is DENIED AS MOOT. The parties are ADVISED that they may appeal from this Final Order by forwarding a written notice of appeal to the Clerk of the United States District Court, United States Courthouse, Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510. 600 Granby Said written notice must be received by the Clerk within sixty (60) days from the date of this Final Order. The Clerk shall forward a copy of this Final Order to Plaintiff and to counsel for the Defendant. /s/. Mark S. Davis United States District Judge Norfolk, Virginia May 30 , 2017

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?