Diggs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

W.D. Virginia

Diggs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedMarch 26, 2021

Docket6:19-cv-00072

StatusUnknown

This text of Diggs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Diggs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Diggs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (W.D. Va. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

CLERKS OFFICE U.S. DIST. C UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT Ne WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 3/26/2021 LYNCHBURG DIVISION JULIA C. DUDLEY, CLERK BY: s/ CARMEN AMOS SAMD. 1 DEPUTY CLERK CASE NO. 6:19-cv-72 Plaintiff, v. ORDER ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, JUDGE NORMAN K. Moon Defendant.

The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment, Dkts. 15, 16, which I referred to Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou for proposed findings of fact and a recommended disposition. In his Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), the magistrate judge determined that the Commissioner’s final decision was supported by substantial evidence and recommended that this Court deny Sam’s motion and grant the Commissioner’s motion. Dkt. 23. Sam timely filed his objections, Dkt. 24, obligating this Court to undertake a de novo review of the Administrative Law Judge’s findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Farmer v. McBride, 177 F. App’x 327, 330 (4th Cir. 2006). After a review of the record in this case and pursuant to this Order’s accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner; 2. Sam D.’s objections are SUSTAINED in part, Dkt. 24; 3. Sam D.’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part, Dkt. 15; 4. Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, Dkt. 16;

' This Court adopts the recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States that courts only use the first name and last initial of the claimant in social security opinions.

5. The R&R is ADOPTED in part and rejected in part, Dkt. 23; 6. The Clerk is directed to STRIKE this case from the active docket. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and to United States Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou. It is so ORDERED. Entered this 26" day of March, 2021.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CLERKS OFFICE U.S. DIST. C UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT Ne WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 3/26/2021 LYNCHBURG DIVISION JULIA C. DUDLEY, CLERK BY: s/ CARMEN AMOS SAMD. 1 DEPUTY CLERK CASE NO. 6:19-cv-72 Plaintiff, v. ORDER ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, JUDGE NORMAN K. Moon Defendant.

The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment, Dkts. 15, 16, which I referred to Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou for proposed findings of fact and a recommended disposition. In his Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), the magistrate judge determined that the Commissioner’s final decision was supported by substantial evidence and recommended that this Court deny Sam’s motion and grant the Commissioner’s motion. Dkt. 23. Sam timely filed his objections, Dkt. 24, obligating this Court to undertake a de novo review of the Administrative Law Judge’s findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Farmer v. McBride, 177 F. App’x 327, 330 (4th Cir. 2006). After a review of the record in this case and pursuant to this Order’s accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner; 2. Sam D.’s objections are SUSTAINED in part, Dkt. 24; 3. Sam D.’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part, Dkt. 15; 4. Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, Dkt. 16;

' This Court adopts the recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States that courts only use the first name and last initial of the claimant in social security opinions.

5. The R&R is ADOPTED in part and rejected in part, Dkt. 23; 6. The Clerk is directed to STRIKE this case from the active docket. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and to United States Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou. It is so ORDERED. Entered this 26" day of March, 2021.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Diggs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diggs-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-vawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack