CRAVENS v. COLVIN, CIV-14-929-C. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Number: infdco20151006b42
Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 01, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 01, 2015
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ROBIN J. CAUTHRON , District Judge . This action for judicial review of the Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits was referred for initial proceedings to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin, consistent with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). Judge Goodwin entered a Report and Recommendation on August 25, 2015 (Dkt. No. 20), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded. Defendant has timely filed an
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ROBIN J. CAUTHRON , District Judge . This action for judicial review of the Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits was referred for initial proceedings to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin, consistent with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). Judge Goodwin entered a Report and Recommendation on August 25, 2015 (Dkt. No. 20), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded. Defendant has timely filed an ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ROBIN J. CAUTHRON, District Judge.
This action for judicial review of the Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits was referred for initial proceedings to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Judge Goodwin entered a Report and Recommendation on August 25, 2015 (Dkt. No. 20), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded. Defendant has timely filed an objection to this report, and the Court therefore considers the matter de novo.
The facts and law are accurately set out in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and there is no purpose to be served in repeating them yet again. In her Objection, Plaintiff argues that Judge Goodwin misconstrued the scope of the holding in Jaramillo v. Colvin, 576 F. App'x 870 (10th Cir. 2014), but this Court disagrees and finds the reversal of this case, under the facts presented, is required by Jaramillo.
Accordingly, the Court adopts, in its entirety, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 20), and for the reasons stated therein, the decision of the Commissioner in this case is reversed and remanded. A judgment will enter accordingly.
Source: Leagle
