Walker v. Saul

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; denying 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part 15 Motion for Summary Judgment, and Remanding case to the Commissioner for further development andconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 3/10/2021. (sas)

Case 7:20-cv-00027-GEC-RSB Document 20 Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 2 Pageid#: 1022

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
LINDA J. WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 7:20CV00027
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER
By: Hon. Glen E. Conrad
Senior United States District Judge

Plaintiff Linda J. Walker filed this action challenging the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim for a period of disability and disability
insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401–434. The matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B), for proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended disposition.
The magistrate judge submitted a Report and Recommendation on February 22, 2021, in which he
recommends that the court grant in part the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, deny the
Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and remand the case to the Commissioner for
additional consideration under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 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. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (discussing the standard of review that applies in the
absence of any objections).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED
as follows:

Case 7:20-cv-00027-GEC-RSB Document 20 Filed 03/10/21 Page 2 of 2 Pageid#: 1023

1.

The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 19, is ADOPTED in its entirety;

2.

The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 15 is GRANTED IN
PART;

3.

The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 11, is DENIED;

4.

The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further development and
consideration;

5.

Upon remand, should the Commissioner be unable to decide this case in plaintiff’s
favor on the basis of the existing record, the Commissioner shall conduct a
supplemental administrative hearing at which both sides will be allowed to present
additional evidence and argument; and

6.

The parties are advised that the court considers this remand order to be a “sentence
four” remand. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993); Melkonyan v.
Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991). Thus, this order of remand is a final order. If the
Commissioner should again deny plaintiff’s claim for benefits, and should plaintiff
again choose to seek judicial review, it will be necessary for plaintiff to initiate a
new civil action within sixty (60) days from the date of the Commissioner’s final
decision on remand. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of record.
10th
DATED: This _____ day of March, 2021.

_______________________________
Senior United States District Judge

2