Brooks v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: adopting 17 Report and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part 12 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 10 Commissioner's Motion for S ummary Judgment, with a remand of the case to the Commissioner for futher proceedings. 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 3/18/2014. (cmd)

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

RHONDA BROOKS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-44
(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 James E. Seibert [Doc.
17], filed on February 27, 2014, 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 Seibert’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 days
plus three days after entry of the report and recommendation, or Sunday, March 16, 2014.
Because the last day was a Sunday, the deadline for objections was Monday, March 17,
2014. FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a)(1)(C). 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 Seibert found that the ALJ mischaracterized evidence relied
on in making the credibility finding. Judge Seibert concluded that, taken together, the ALJ’s
mischaracterizations of the record when considering the Plaintiff’s credibility require
remand.
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 Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and the
Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN
PART, with a remand of the case 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: March 18, 2014.

2