Chandler v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; granting Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Defendant's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment. This matter is ordered DISMISSED with prejudice and STRICKEN from the docket. Judgment will be entered in favor of the Plaintiff. Signed by District Judge Gina M. Groh on 7/1/2014. (tlg)

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

CAROLYN CHRISTINE CHANDLER,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-19
(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 June 11, 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 Magistrate 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 June 30,
2014. 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, Magistrate Judge Kaull found that substantial evidence did not support
the findings of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”). Magistrate Judge Kaull concluded that
the ALJ failed to sufficiently articulate the weight and the reasons supporting assigning
such weight to the opinions of Mr. Morgan, Mr. McCullough, the state agency physicians,
Dr. Franyutti and Dr. Lateef, and the state agency psychologists, Dr. Allen and Dr. Bartee.
Therefore, Magistrate Judge Kaull held that the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s residual
functional capacity assessment was not supported by substantial evidence. Having found
that the ALJ failed to sufficiently articulate the weight and the reasons for such weight
assigned to the aforementioned opinions, Magistrate Judge Kaull did not address Plaintiff’s
contention regarding the ALJ’s credibility determination.
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, 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.

2

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record.
DATED: July 1, 2014

3