From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bursing v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Jun 25, 2013
Case No.: 2:12-cv-000434-GMN-GWF (D. Nev. Jun. 25, 2013)

Opinion

Case No.: 2:12-cv-000434-GMN-GWF

06-25-2013

DARCY BURSING, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant.


ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE

JUDGE GEORGE FOLEY, JR.

Pending before the Court is the judicial review of the administrative action by the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff Darcy Burton's claim for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) was filed on March 15, 2012. Defendant's Answer (ECF No. 11) was filed on September 11, 2012. Plaintiff filed his Motion to Remand Administrative Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (ECF No. 16) on November 8, 2012. The Commissioner of Social Security filed his Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support Thereof and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (ECF No. 17) on December 7, 2012. Plaintiff filed his Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) on January 14, 2013.

Also before the Court are the Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 22) of the Honorable George Foley, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge, entered on March 4, 2013.

Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by March 21, 2013. No objections have been filed. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule IB 1-4, the Court has reviewed the record in this case and has determined that Magistrate Judge Foley's Recommendation should be ACCEPTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Remand (ECF No. 16) is hereby GRANTED and this case shall be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security to obtain a consultive neuropsychological assessment of the Plaintiff and for the Commissioner to determine whether Plaintiff is able to perform light duty or sedentary work in light of his medically determinable impairments.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) is hereby DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

____________

Gloria M. Navarro

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Bursing v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Jun 25, 2013
Case No.: 2:12-cv-000434-GMN-GWF (D. Nev. Jun. 25, 2013)
Case details for

Bursing v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:DARCY BURSING, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Jun 25, 2013

Citations

Case No.: 2:12-cv-000434-GMN-GWF (D. Nev. Jun. 25, 2013)