Franklin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Penny Lu Franklin, No. CV-19-00261-TUC-RCC (JR) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

15 On July 6, 2020, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which she recommended the Court enter an order reversing the final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security and remanding the case to the Commissioner with instructions that the Appeals Council in turn remand the case with instructions. (Doc. 25.) The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R to file any objections. No objections have been filed.

21 If neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the District Court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s decision under any specified standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the statute guiding review of a magistrate judge’s recommendation “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.

27 The Court has reviewed and considered the complaint, the opening brief, the motion for remand, and the R&R. The Court finds the R&R well–reasoned and agrees || with Judge Rateau’s conclusions.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 3 1. The R&R is ADOPTED. (Doc. 25.)

4 2. The Motion to Remand is GRANTED. (Doc. 22.)

3. The final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed and 6 remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

4. Upon remand, the Appeals Counsel shall: 8 a. allow Plaintiff to submit additional evidence and argument; b. re-adjudicate Plaintiffs claim using the five-step sequential evaluation 10 process; i c. evaluate the medical evidence, including but not limited to the opinions of 12 William Abraham, M.D.; 13 d. reassess Plaintiff's subjective statements about symptoms; e. reevaluate Plaintiff's residual functional capacity; 15 f. take any further action deemed necessary to develop the record; and 16 g. render a de novo decision.

5. The Clerk of Court shall docket accordingly and close the case file in this matter.

18 Dated this 23rd day of July, 2020.

21 (J Dp 22 TN Corl—— 73 Honorable Raner ©. Collins sernior United States District Judge _2-