From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Renfro v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE at GREENEVILLE
Jan 30, 2013
Case No. 2:12-cv-8 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 30, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 2:12-cv-8

01-30-2013

FREDERICK ARLEN RENFRO, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.


Judge Mattice

Magistrate Judge Lee


ORDER

On January 10, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed her Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Lee recommended that (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 9) be denied in part to the extent that the Plaintiff seeks an award of benefits and granted in part to the extent that Plaintiff seeks remand to the Commissioner; (2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 11) be denied; and (3) the Decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded.

Neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Lee's well-reasoned conclusions.

Magistrate Judge Lee specifically advised the parties that they had 14 days in which to object to the Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive any rights to appeal. (Doc. 22 at 19 n.1); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (noting that "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings"). Taking into account the three additional days for service provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), the period in which the parties could timely file objections expired on January 28, 2013.

Accordingly:

• The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lee's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b);
• Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 9) is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART;
• Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 11) is DENIED;
• The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for action consistent with this Order and the adopted Report and Recommendation.

______________________

HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Renfro v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE at GREENEVILLE
Jan 30, 2013
Case No. 2:12-cv-8 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 30, 2013)
Case details for

Renfro v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:FREDERICK ARLEN RENFRO, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE at GREENEVILLE

Date published: Jan 30, 2013

Citations

Case No. 2:12-cv-8 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 30, 2013)