Mills v. Kijakazi, No. 1:2020cv00567 - Document 17 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 16 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; granting plaintiff's 13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to the extent she seeks remand of the Commissioner's decision; denying defendant's 15 request to affirm the Commissioner's decision; reversing the final decision of the Commissioner; remanding the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings; and directing the Clerk to remove this case from the court's active docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 9/20/2021. (cc: counsel of record) (arb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Mills v. Kijakazi Doc. 17 Case 1:20-cv-00567 Document 17 Filed 09/20/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1072 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD AMANDA MILLS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-00567 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of findings and recommendation regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on August 6, 2021, in which she recommended that the court grant the plaintiff’s request for judgment on the pleadings to the extent that it seeks remand of the Commissioner’s decision; deny defendant’s request to affirm the Commissioner’s decision; reverse the final decision of the Commissioner, remand the case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings as outlined in the PF&R; and dismiss this matter from the court’s docket. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), plaintiff was allotted fourteen days and three mailing days in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Eifert's Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00567 Document 17 Filed 09/20/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1073 Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The failure of any party to file such objections within the time allowed constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989). Neither party filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations within the required time period. Accordingly, the court adopts the Findings and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Eifert as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED to the extent she seeks remand of the Commissioner’s decision; 2. Defendant’s request to affirm the Commissioner’s decision is DENIED; 3. The final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED; 4. The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings as outlined in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation; and 5. This Clerk is directed to remove this case from the court’s active docket. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record. 2 Case 1:20-cv-00567 Document 17 Filed 09/20/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1074 IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th of September, 2021. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 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.
