McDiffitt v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REMANDING CIVIL ACTION TO COMMISSIO NER: Granting 10 Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; and Adopting Report and Recommendations for 17 Report and Recommendations; case remanded to Commissioner of SSA for further action and stricken from active docket of this Court; Clerk directed to enter judgment pursuant to FRCP 58. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 8/3/16. (soa)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MELISSA K. McDIFFITT,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 5:15CV58
(STAMP)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND REMANDING CIVIL ACTION TO COMMISSIONER
I.
Procedural History
The plaintiff, Melissa Kaye McDiffitt (“McDiffitt”), filed an
application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental
Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act
respectively.
McDiffitt’s
The
Social
application
Security
initially
and
Administration
on
denied
reconsideration.
McDiffitt requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”), and a hearing was held at which McDiffitt was represented
by counsel. At the hearing, McDiffitt testified on her own behalf,
as did a vocational expert.
The ALJ issued a decision finding that McDiffitt was not
disabled under the Social Security Act but instead found that
McDiffitt had a Residual Functional Capacity to perform a range of
sedentary
work
subject
to
certain
nonexertional
limitations.
Further, the ALJ found that McDiffitt was unable to perform her
past relevant work, but that there were jobs in significant numbers
that McDiffitt could perform.
again denied.
Thus, McDiffitt’s benefits were
McDiffitt then timely filed an appeal of the
decision to the Appeals Council.
The Appeals Council denied
McDiffitt’s request for review.
McDiffitt then filed a request for judicial review of the
ALJ’s decision in this Court.
The case was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi for submission of proposed
findings of fact and recommendation for disposition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B).
Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.
After consideration of those motions, the magistrate judge entered
a report recommending that McDiffitt’s motion for summary judgment
be granted, and that this action be remanded to the Commissioner
for further action.
Upon submitting his report, Magistrate Judge
Aloi informed the parties that if they objected to any portion of
his proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition,
they must file written objections within fourteen days after being
served with a copy of the report.
The magistrate judge further
informed the parties that failure to timely object would result in
a waiver of the right to appeal a judgment resulting from the
report and recommendation.
Neither party filed objections.
2
II.
Applicable Law
As there were no objections filed to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation, his findings and recommendation will be upheld
unless they are “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A). Additionally, because no party filed objections to
the report and recommendation, the parties waived their right to
appeal from a judgment of this Court based thereon. Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 148-53 (1985).
III.
Discussion
Magistrate Judge Aloi concluded that the ALJ failed to provide
a complete explanation of her finding that McDiffitt did not meet
or equal any impairments listed at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P,
Appendix 1.
The magistrate judge correctly noted that an ALJ must
“compare the [claimant’s] actual symptoms to the requirements of
any relevant listed impairments in more than a summary way.”
v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168, 1173 (4th cir. 1986).
judge
concluded
fibromyalgia
and
that
the
chronic
ALJ
failed
fatigue
to
The magistrate
consider
syndrome
in
Cook
McDiffitt’s
conducting
her
impairment listing analysis.
Indeed, the ALJ failed to mention
McDiffitt’s
chronic
fibromyalgia
and
fatigue
syndrome
or
any
related symptoms in conducting her impairment listing analysis,
despite finding that those conditions were severe impairments.
Accordingly, this Court finds no error in the magistrate judge’s
findings and recommendations.
3
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, this Court finds that the
magistrate
judge’s
report
and
recommendation
is
not
clearly
erroneous and AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation (ECF No. 17).
Accordingly, McDiffitt’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED, and the defendant’s
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.
It is ORDERED
that this case be REMANDED to the Commissioner for further action
in accordance with this order.
It is further ORDERED that this
civil action be STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.
Finally, this Court finds that the parties were properly
advised by the magistrate judge that failure to timely object to
the report and recommendation in this action would result in a
waiver of appellate rights.
Because the parties failed to object,
they have waived their right to seek appellate review of this
matter.
See Arn, 474 U.S. at 148-53.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein. Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment
on this matter.
4
DATED:
August 3, 2016
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?