Filed: Sep. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 24, 2014
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (document no. 21), GRANTING GUIDO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART (document no. 14), DENYING COMMISSIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 17) AND REMANDING CASE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III, District Judge. The Social Security Administration denied plaintiff and claimant Rosanna Guido's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. An Administrative Law Judge issued the original decis
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (document no. 21), GRANTING GUIDO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART (document no. 14), DENYING COMMISSIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 17) AND REMANDING CASE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III, District Judge. The Social Security Administration denied plaintiff and claimant Rosanna Guido's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. An Administrative Law Judge issued the original decisi..
More
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (document no. 21), GRANTING GUIDO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART(document no. 14), DENYING COMMISSIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 17) AND REMANDING CASE
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III, District Judge.
The Social Security Administration denied plaintiff and claimant Rosanna Guido's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. An Administrative Law Judge issued the original decision. See ALJ Decision, ECF No. 11-2, at 13. The SSA Appeals Council declined to review the decision and Underhill appealed to this Court. The Court referred the matter to a United States Magistrate Judge, and the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. On July 29, 2014, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting the Court grant Guido's motion to the extent it seeks remand but denying an outright award of benefits. It further recommended denying the Commissioner of Social Security's motion, and remanding the case. Report, ECF No. 21.
A copy of the Report was served to both parties on July 29, 2014. Under Civil Rule 72(b), each party had fourteen days from the date of service to file any written objections to the recommended disposition. Neither party has filed any objections. De Novo review of the magistrate judge's findings is therefore not required. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). The Court has reviewed the file and the Report, and finds that the magistrate judge's analysis is proper. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report's findings and conclusions and will enter an appropriate judgment.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Guido' motion for summary judgment (document no. 14) is GRANTED IN PART. This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (document no. 21) is ADOPTED
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (document no. 17) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
