-DSC Neeley v. Astrue, No. 3:2010cv00524 - Document 17 (W.D.N.C. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER denying as moot 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment and 10 Motion to Remand; granting 13 Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Reversal and Remand; adopting re 16 Memorandum and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 8/11/2011. (tmg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-DSC Neeley v. Astrue Doc. 17 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:10cv524 KIMBERLY NEELEY, Plaintiff, Vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. _______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OF DECISION THIS MATTER is before the court on the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#9); the defendant’s Motion for Reversal and Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (#10); the defendant’s Amended Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Reversal and Remand of the Cause to the Defendant (#13); and on the Recommendation of the Honorable David S. Cayer, United States Magistrate Judge, regarding the disposition of those motions. Pursuant to 28, United States Code, Section 636(b), Judge Cayer was designated to consider these pending motions in the above-captioned action and to submit to this Court a recommendation for the disposition of these motions. On July 15, 2011, Judge Cayer entered the Memorandum and Recommendation containing proposed conclusions of law in support of his recommendation concerning such Dockets.Justia.com motions. The parties were advised that any objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation were to be filed in writing within fourteen (14) days of service. The period within which to file objections has expired, and no written objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation have been filed. After careful review of Judge Cayer’s well reasoned Memorandum and Recommendation, the court finds that the proposed conclusions of law are consistent with current case law. Accordingly, the court hereby ACCEPTS Judge Cayer’s recommendation. ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#9) and the defendant’s Motion for Reversal and Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (#10) are both DENIED as MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant’s Amended Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Reversal and Remand of the Cause to the Defendant for consideration of new and material evidence with respect to Defendant’s subsequent decision to allow benefits (#13) is GRANTED. A judgment consistent with this Memorandum and Decision shall be entered simultaneously herewith. 2 Signed: August 11, 2011 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
