REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.

Before this Court is Defendant's Motion for Reversal and Remand. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff has not responded to this Motion. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2005), the Honorable P. K. Holmes, III referred this case to this Court for the purpose of making a report and recommendation. In accordance with that referral, this Court enters the following report and recommendation.

Defendant requests Plaintiff's case be remanded. ECF No. 10. Defendant requests this remand so the ALJ may further develop the record regarding Plaintiff's mental impairments and determine the limitations they cause and further evaluate Plaintiff's credibility with additional testimony from Plaintiff and lay witnesses. ECF No. 10, Pg. 2.

According to Defendant, the ALJ found Plaintiff's depression was not severe because Plaintiff's cancer diagnosis was a major factor in Plaintiff's depression, and the ALJ believed Plaintiff's cancer subsequently was successfully treated. (Tr. 20, 21). However, the record indicates Plaintiff's depression persisted after his splenectomy to remove the cancer. (Tr. 633). Also, Consultative examiner Dr. Nancy Bunting and state agency medical consultant Dr. Brad Williams both indicated Plaintiff had moderate to severe limitations in his ability to cope with certain mental and cognitive demands of work. (Tr. 605, 613-614). However, according to Defendant, the ALJ did not provide sufficient reasons for discounting those opinions. Finally, according to Defendant, the ALJ decision contains inaccurate statements concerning Plaintiff's medications and daily activities.

Based upon the foregoing, this Court recommends Defendants Motion for Reversal and Remand (ECF No. 10) be GRANTED and Plaintiff's case be remanded, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to the Social Security Administration for further administrative review. On remand, this Court recommends the ALJ further develop the record regarding Plaintiff's mental impairments and determine the limitations they cause, and further evaluate Plaintiff's credibility with additional testimony from Plaintiff and lay witnesses.

The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).