Edwards v. Astrue

Filing 26

ORDER sustaining Plaintiff's Objection; adopting in part and rejecting in part 22 Report and Recommendations; granting 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 19 Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment; remanding case to Commissioner for further review; dismissing case from the active docket. Signed by Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 12/6/12. (ham)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA DANVILLE DIVISION KENNETH R. EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.:4:12-cv-00005 ORDER By: Hon. Jackson L. Kiser Senior United States District Judge Before me are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff, Kenneth R. Edwards (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”). The motions have been evaluated by Magistrate Judge B. Waugh Crigler, who filed a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) on October 22, 2012, recommending that I grant the Commissioner’s Motion and dismiss the case. [ECF No. 22.] Plaintiff filed a timely objection on November 1, 2012, [ECF No. 23], and the Commissioner responded [ECF No. 24]. After careful review and consideration, and for the reasons outlined in the Memorandum Opinion filed herewith, I will SUSTAIN the Plaintiff’s objection, ADOPT IN PART AND REJECT IN PART the R & R, GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, DENY the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, REMAND this case to the Commissioner for further review, and DISMISS this case from the active docket of this Court. The clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying Order to all counsel of record and to Magistrate Judge Crigler. Entered this 6th day of December, 2012. s/Jackson L. Kiser SENIOR 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?