Fletcher v. Social Security Administration, 3:18-cv-00111. (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20190320g39
Visitors: 19
Filed: Mar. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER ELI RICHARDSON , District Judge . This is an action instituted under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits. On February 25, 2019, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Record (Doc. No. 20) be granted, that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed, and that the matter be remanded to the Commissio
Summary: ORDER ELI RICHARDSON , District Judge . This is an action instituted under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits. On February 25, 2019, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Record (Doc. No. 20) be granted, that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed, and that the matter be remanded to the Commission..
More
ORDER
ELI RICHARDSON, District Judge.
This is an action instituted under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits. On February 25, 2019, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Record (Doc. No. 20) be granted, that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed, and that the matter be remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings with respect to the "step five" issues discussed at pages 9-15 of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 25). Although the parties were advised of their right to object to that recommendation, and of the consequences of their failure to do so, there has been no objection.
Having conducted the de novo review required by Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court agrees with the recommended disposition. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 25) is ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED. Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Record (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT pursuant to Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
