Ellis v. Colvin
Filing
24
ORDER remanding pursuant to sentence four; granting 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 23 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 6/24/2014. (jat)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
HARRISONBURG DIVISION
BRENDA F. ELLIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.: 5:13cv00043
By: Hon. Michael F. Urbanski
United States District Judge
ORDER
This matter was referred to the Honorable Joel C. Hoppe, United States Magistrate Judge,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for proposed findings of fact and a recommended disposition.
The Magistrate Judge filed a report and recommendation on May 15, 2014, recommending that the
Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment be denied, that the plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment be granted, and that this case be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings. No
objections to the report and recommendation have been filed, and the court is of the opinion that the
report and recommendation should be adopted in its entirety. It is accordingly ORDERED and
ADJUDGED that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 13, is GRANTED, that the
Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 17, is DENIED, that the report and
recommendation, Dkt. No. 23, is ADOPTED in its entirety, that the this case is REMANDED to
the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration consistent
with the report and recommendation, and that this matter is STRICKEN from the active docket of the
court.
The Clerk is directed to send a certified copy of this Order to all counsel of record.
Entered: June 24, 2014
/s/ Michael F. Urbanski
Michael F. Urbanski
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?