Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00674/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00674-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The Court reviews de novo the objected to portions of the Report and

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b). The Court review for clear

error the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v. Zema

Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d

1203, 1204 (D.Or. 1998).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Brian Crumly, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social

Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-674-TUC-RCC

ORDER

Pending before this Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States

Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle.1

 The Report and Recommendation recommends granting

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and remanding this case with instructions outlined

under the remedy section of the Report and Recommendation because the ALJ’s decision is

not supported by substantial evidence in the record and free of legal error. Defendant’s

objections primarily raise issues that were already considered and appropriately addressed

by Magistrate Judge Pyle. As Magistrate Judge Pyle thoroughly and correctly analyzed, the

Case 4:08-cv-00674-RCC Document 16 Filed 07/30/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

ALJ—(1) failed to evaluate treating physician Dr. Barnett’s opinion about Plaintiff’s

sensitivity to loud noices or general opinion that Plaintiff is chronically disables; (2) erred

in evaluating Plaintiff’s mother’s statements; (3) erred in evaluating Plaintiff’s sensitivity to

light; (4) erred in evaluating Plaintiff’s medical treatment; and (5) erred in evaluating

Plaintiff’s daily activities. There is no reversible error in this matter and Defendant’s

objections are denied. See Report and Recommendation at 22-30.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) United States Magistrate Judge Pyle’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is

accepted and adopted.

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10) is granted.

(3) This case is remanded to the Commissioner with instruction as outlined in the

Remedy section of the Report and Recommendation. See Report and Recommendation 31-

37.

(4) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

DATED this 29th day of July, 2010.

Case 4:08-cv-00674-RCC Document 16 Filed 07/30/10 Page 2 of 2