Harris v. Colvin

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 16 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the magistrate judge; the decision of the Commissioner is reversed; and the claim is remanded for further administrative proceedings, as directed and set forth more fully herein. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 1/20/2015. (cc: attys; United States Magistrate Judge) (taq)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON ROGER LEE HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 2:13-28109 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The court having received the Proposed Findings and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert, entered on December 1, 2014; and the magistrate judge having recommended that the court reverse the final decision of the Commissioner and remand this matter pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and no objection having been filed to the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, it is ORDERED that: 1. The findings made in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the magistrate judge be, and hereby are, adopted by the court and incorporated herein; 2. The decision of the Commissioner be, and hereby is, reversed; 3. The claim is remanded for further administrative proceedings to determine if plaintiff meets the diagnostic description of mental retardation -- that is, whether he has “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive functioning initially manifested during the developmental period, i.e., the evidence demonstrates or supports onset of the impairment before age 22.” The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written opinion and order to all counsel of record and the United States Magistrate Judge. DATED: January 20, 2015 John T. Copenhaver, Jr. United States District Judge 2

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?