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)
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?