Stephens, II v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: granting in part 9 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 11 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Commissioner of Social Security; adopting 14 Report and Recommendations. This Court ORDERS that 11 the Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED and 9 the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED in part, by reversing the Commissioners decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), with a remand of the cause to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent and in accord with the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, this Court further ORDERS that this matter be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and that it be STRICKEN FROM THE DOCKET OF THIS COURT. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. Signed by District Judge Gina M. Groh on 11/14/2013. (cmd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG

CARL LEE STEPHENS, II,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-03
(JUDGE GROH)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull [Doc. 14],
filed on October 25, 2013, to which neither party filed objections. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the
magistrate judge’s findings to which objection is made. However, failure to file objections
to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendation permits the district court
to review the recommendation under the standards that the district court believes are
appropriate, and under these circumstances, the parties’ right to de novo review is waived.
See Webb v. Califano, 468 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Cal. 1979).
Pursuant to Judge Kaull’s report and recommendation, as well as 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), objections were due fourteen plus
three days after entry of the report and recommendation, or by November 13, 2013. The
report and recommendation specifically stated that objections were to be filed within
fourteen days after being served with a copy. Accordingly, because no objections have

been filed, this Court will review the report and recommendation for clear error.
In this matter, Judge Kaull found that substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s
credibility finding. Additionally, among other things, Judge Kaull concluded that (1) the
ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff did not meet or medically equal any listed impairment was
not supported by substantial evidence, (2) the ALJ did not properly take into account
Plaintiff’s borderline personality disorder in evaluating his credibility, and (3) the ALJ’s
findings in regards to Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and
limiting effects of his symptoms were not supported by substantial evidence.
Upon review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and
Recommendation should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED. For the reasons more
fully stated in the Report and Recommendation, this Court ORDERS that the Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED and the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment be GRANTED in part, by reversing the Commissioner’s decision under sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), with a remand of the cause to the
Commissioner for further proceedings consistent and in accord with the Report and
Recommendation. Accordingly, this Court further ORDERS that this matter be DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE and that it be STRICKEN FROM THE DOCKET OF THIS COURT.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record.
DATED: November 14, 2013

2