CLARK v. COLVIN, 2:12-CV-146. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20130826a16
Visitors: 12
Filed: Aug. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2013
Summary: ORDER THOMAS A. VARLAN, Chief District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") entered by United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton on June 25, 2013 [Doc. 16]. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Guyton recommended that plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 9] be granted for the purposes of remand, that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 11] be denied, and that this matter be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for furth
Summary: ORDER THOMAS A. VARLAN, Chief District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") entered by United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton on June 25, 2013 [Doc. 16]. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Guyton recommended that plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 9] be granted for the purposes of remand, that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 11] be denied, and that this matter be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for furthe..
More
ORDER
THOMAS A. VARLAN, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") entered by United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton on June 25, 2013 [Doc. 16]. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Guyton recommended that plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 9] be granted for the purposes of remand, that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 11] be denied, and that this matter be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings. There have been no timely objections to the R&R, and enough time has passed since the filing of the R&R to treat any objections as having been waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
After a careful review of the matter, the Court is in agreement with Magistrate Judge Guyton's recommendations, which the Court adopts and incorporates into its ruling. Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 9] is GRANTED to the extent that this case is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the R&R. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 11] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
