Case Information
*1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA TANGELA COOPER ELLER, ) )
Plaintiff, )
) v l:14CY493 ) ) CAROLYN Sr. COLVIN, ) Acting Commissioner Social )
Security, )
)
)
Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, Tangela Coopet Eller, seeks review a fìnal decision the Commissioner Social Secutity denying her claims for social security disability benefits. The Court has before it cenifìed administrative record and cross-motions judgment.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed an application period disability and disability insurance benefits in Octobet 2010 alleging disabiJity onset date October'1,0,2009,later amended toJune 1, 2009. fr.1,7,1,36-38.) application was denied initially again upon reconsideration. (Id. at 60-84.) Plaintiff then requested heating before -Administrative LawJudge ("ALJ"). (Id. at 88-89.) ,\t the February , 201,3 headng were Plaintiff, het attorney, vocational cxpcrt (1/E"). (d. 30-59.) On Match 26,201,3, the -A.LJ detetmined that not disabled undet -Àct. (Id. 17-29.) On Âpril Appeals Council denied
Plaintiffs request review, making ,\LJ's determination Commissioner's fìnal decision fot putposes review. Qd. 1,-4.)
II. STANDARD FOR REVIEW
The scope judicial teview Commissioner's fìnal decision is specific and naffou/. Srnith a. Scbweiker, F.2d 343, 345 (4th Cir. 1986). Review is limited to detetmining if thete is substantial evidence the record suppott Commissioner's decision. 42 U.S.C. $ a05(g); Hantera. Sa/liuan,993F.2d3'1,,34 (4th Cir. 1.992);Hayu. Salliuan, 907 F.2d 1.453,1,456 (4th Cir. 1990). In teviewing substanttal evidence, the Cout does not re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute its judgment for Commissioner. Craigu. Chater,76tr.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1,996). The issue befote the Coutt, thetefore, is not whether Plaintiff is disabled but whether Commissioner's finding that not disabled suppotted by substantial evidence and was reached based upon correct application the relevant law. Id.
III. THE ALJ'S DISCUSSION
The AIJ followed well-established five-step sequential analysis ascertain whether claimant is disabled, which is set forth 20 C.F.R. SS 404.1520. See Albright Comm'r Soc. Sec. Adrnin., F.3d 473, 475 n.2 (4th Ctr. 1,999). Hete, ÂLJ frst detetmined that Plaintiff had not engaged substantial gainful activity since het amended onset date ofJune 1, 2009. (Id. 1.9.) ,\LJ next found that Plaintiff suffered ftom single severe ^t impaitment, fibromyalgia. (Id.) Àt step three, the ,\LJ found did have an impairment ot combination impairments meets medically equals one listed in *3 Appendix 1. (Id.) At the fourth step, determined that Plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant work. Qd. 23.) At step five, ÂLJ determined that, given Plaintiffls age, education, work experience, and RFC, thete were other jobs that Plaintiff could perform, such mail clerk/sortet, office helpet, and foldet (Itl 24.) Consequently, ^t ,\IJ detetmined Plaintiff disabled from alleged onset date Sune 2009) thtough date the decision (À4arch 26,20'13.). Qr. 24-25.)
Prior to four, the,\LJ determined Plaintiffs RFC based on AIJ's evaluation evidence, including Plaintiffs testimony and findings treating and examining health care providers. (Id. 20-23.) Based evidence as a whole, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform limited range üght work. (Id. at 20.) Specifìcally, the,A.LJ concluded that Plaintiff could perform light wotk (ifting carcying twenty pounds occasionally ten pounds ftequently standing, walking, and sitting six hours during an eight hout wotk day), except she: (1) could only ftequently handle and finger brlaterally, Q) could only occasionally climb, balance, stoop, crouch, kneel or crawl, (3) could have no concentrated exposure hazards like moving machinery unprotected heights, and (4) should be limited to unskilled activity. (Id.)
IV. ANALYSIS makes three arguments. First, Plaintiff contends that the,{IJ failed to follow
Social Security Ruling 12-2p evaluating her severe fibromyalgia. (Docket E.rt y 10 at 3.) Second, contends that substantial evidence does not support the,{.LJ's RFC finding. (Id.) Third, Plaintiff contends ,{LJ failed present proper hypothetical question
-)
VE. (Itl.) Fot following reasons, the undetsigned concludes that rcmand is order
A. SSR 12-2p and Fibtornyalg¡a argues that ,\LJ ered by failing address fibromyalgia at every of process, particulady at step three. (Docket E.ttty 10 at3.) She contends that though AIJ found at step two Plaintiff's fibtomyalgia severe, never mentioned SSR 12-2p his decision, nor evaluated Plaintiff in light Ruling. (Id.)
To evaluate argument, understanding n tute fibromyalgra, and SSR 12-2p, necessary. Regarding fotmer, Foutth Circuit has explained:
[f]ibtomyalgia rheumatic disease with . symptomsl ] including "significant pain and fatigue," tenderness, stiffness joints, disturbed sleep . . . . Doctots diagnose fibtomyalgia based on tenderness least eleven eighteen standatd trigger points on the body. . . "People rheumatoid athritis and othet autoimmune diseases, such lupus, ate parttcularþ likely develop fibromyalgia." . . . Fibromyalgia"caninterfete with a person's ability carry daily activities." "Some people may have such severe case fìbromyalgi^ be totally ^s disabled ftom working, but most do not." Stap UNUM Life Int. Co., 390 F.3d 301, 303 (4th Cft. 2004) (internal citations omitted) abrogated on othergroønds, Metro. Life Im Co. a. Glenn, U.S. (2008). -As SSR 12-2p, its putpose is to provide "guidance orì how fthe.{dministtation] develop[s] evidence establish person has medically determinable impairment (MDI) of ûbtomyalgia @M), how fthe Administration] evaluate[s] FM disability claims and continuing disability teviews under tides II XVI Social Security Act (-Act)." SSR 12-2p,2012WL3104869, *1 fluly 25,2012)
B. Step Three
When evaluating whethet a claimant meets one or more of the listed impairments, the ÂLJ must identift relevant listings and then compare each of listed criteria evidence of the claimant's symptoms . Cook Hetkler, 783 F.2d 11,68, 1.173 (4th Cir. 1986). This requfues an .{LJ to compare the plaintifPs actual symptoms the requitements any relevant listed impairments in mote than a summarT v/ay. Id. "The ÀLJ is required give more than a mere conclusory analysis the plaintifPs impairments pursuant tegulatory listings." Frale1u. Astrae, No. 5:07CV14'1.,2009 ì7L 577261, úx25 OJ.D.!ø.Va.Mar.5,2009) (citation omitted).
In SSR '12-2p, the Administtation provided following guidance as how to consider fìbromyaþa step thtee sequential process
FM cannot meet listing appendix because FM not listed impairment. Â.t therefore, we determine whethet FM medically equals listing (fot example, listing 1,4.09D
listing for inflammatory arthntis), ot whether it medically equals a
listing in combination ^t least one othet medicaliy determinable impairment.
SSR 12-2p,2012 nØL 3104869,at*6
Here, his step three analysis, -ALJ wrote "The claimant does have an impairment combination of impaitments meets ot medically equals the sevetity one ìisted impafuments . . . . The severity the claimant's mental impairment does not meet or medically equal the criteda of listing 12.06."1 ffr. 19.) After setting fonh criteda t Lirting 12.06, the listing anxiety-related disorders, met if individual meets ot medically equals the,\ B, the,\ C, cdteria. 20 C.F.R. Pt.404, Subpart P.,,\pp'x S 12.06(Ð-(C). Ä cnter:ra are met when claimant medically documents at least one five symptoms. Id. The *6 for listing-which tequires the ÂLJ rate Plaintiffs activities of daily living, social functioning; concentration petsistence, or pace; repeated episodes of decompen52den-¡þe ,\LJ conducted following analysis
In activities of daily living, the claimant has mild
restrictions as claimant cares het cats, vacuums, does laundry, watches television, and uses the computer pay bills. In social functioning, clatmant has mild difficulties as she attends Bible study Monday nights, gtocerT shops, and gets along others. \)Øith regatd coflcenttation, persistence or pace, claimant has mild difficulties the claimant stated could focus concenú^te. As episodes of decompensation, the claimant has experienced no episodes decompensation, which have been of extended dutation. Because claimant's mental impairment does not cause at least two "marked" limitations or one matked limitation and "repeated" episodes decompensation, each extended duration, "patagraph B" crttetia arc satisfied. The undetsigned has also consideted whethet "pangtaph C" ctitetia are satisfied. In case, evidence fails establish the presence "pangraph C" ctitetia.
Çr 20.)
It is cleat from tecotd that "the failed discuss or even mention Plaintiffs fìbtomyalgia" Step concluding that Plaintiffs impairments, singulady or in combination, failed equal listed impai-tment." Kinsry Coluin,No. 8:13-1723-8HH,201,4 B criteria are met by having least two the followrng: marked testtiction of activities daily living; matked difficulties in maintaining social functioning; matked difficulties in maintaining concentradon, persistence, pace; or repeated episodes decompensation, each extended dutation. Id. The paragraph C cdteria require complete inabrlity to function outside the area one's home. Id. *7 Action No. 1:14CV1.26, 201,5 \Xry- 51,8645, ñ x'1,4 G{.D.ìø.Va. Feb. 6, 201,5); Cashin u. Coluin, No. 1:12CV909, 201.3\Xry,3791439,úx4-5 (1.{.D. OhioJuly 1,8,201.3). The,\LJ should have done so after detetmining that Plaintiffs fìbromyalgia a severe impairment at step two of the sequential evaluation. Qr. at 19.)
Given the A{'s failure mention or discuss PlaintifPs fìbromyalgia at step thtee sequential evaluation, the undetsigned cannot conclude that the,{LJ's determination that did not "have impairment or combination impairments that meets ot medically equals the severity one the listed impairments 20 CFR Part Subpart P, ,\ppendix 1" Gt. ^t 1.9) is suppotted by substantial evidence. Nor can undersigned find that such ertot hatmless "because Social Secutity regulations state that if person's impaitments meet equal Listing, she is disabled under the regulations would be entitled to benefits with no futther analysis required." Cashin, WL 3791,439, at *6.2 Accotdingly, undetsigned agrees matter should be remanded discussion Plaintiffs fibromyalgia at Step Three.
Defendant's atguments conúary are not persuasive. Defendant acknowledges that ,\LJ did not mention SSR 12-2p at step three, nor anywhete else his decision, but contends he had no obligation to do so, so long he fully complied requirements 2 See Hook, VL 51.8645, at *14-15 (concluding failure mention claimant's severe frbtomyaþa at step thtee was not harmless etror); Lillard u. Clmm'r, Sot. Sec., No. 13-cv-1458-JI3, 2014 WL 200471,0, at *3 (D. Md. May 1,4, 201,4) (remanding for futhet analysis claimant's fibromyalgia because "it not clear [the ,\LJ'E decision would have been the same had she employed guidance SSR 12-2p" and considering it "[s]ignificantl ]" "the ALJ only exptessly considered Listing 12.04, which penains affective disorders, did not specifically evaluate any Listings physical impaitments"); Vest Coluin, No. 5:13CV00067, 2014 WL 4656207, *27 (E.D. Va. Sept. 16, 2014) ('The mere fact thatan-{LJ ptoperly found a claimant capable past work step four ot othet wotk at step Frve does not render error at step three harmless; otherwise, ^n thtee errors would never be teversible alone, which is cleady case."). Rule. (Docket E.rtry 1,3 at 7.) undersigned agrees that thete no per se rule requidng remand an -ALJ's failure to mention SSR 12-2p where fìbtomyalgia is found be severe impairment at step two. Flowever, reasons descdbed throughout *ris Recommendation, it is fat from cleat -dLJ was cogtizant of, adhered to, dictates SSR 1,2-2p.
Defendant also contends that the ALJ considered Plaintiffs fibromyalgia at step three. (Docket Entty at 8-1,0.) Defendant concedes the ALJ never mentioned fibromyalgia at step three, but teasons that the ,\LJ must have considered Plaintiffls fibtomyaþa because it was only severe impairment identifìed by ÂLJ at step two. (Id. at 9.) Defendant futher contends that ,\LJ analyzed Listing 12.06 because alleged limitations Plaintiff suffeted het ability concentate focus as result het fibromyalgia. Qd.) Â.ssuming this not impermissrlie þo:t hoo' rattonahzalon by Commissionet,3 Defendant's argument-^t least fìrst glance-seems compelling. However, Plaintiff, by way teply, has a compelling point well. She suggests that by evaluating Listing 12.06 telated anxiety impairments at step three, simply tracking tbe 1,2.06 analysis conducted by non-examining state agency physicians who wete analyzing Plaintiffs non-severe anxiety disorder lø;thet than Plaintiffs fìbromyalgia. (Docket E.rtty 5 referencing Tr. 63-64, 72-74.) Ultimately exchange heightens concern undersigned ÂLJ failed adequately explain his findings teasoning at thtee Postbocagency rattonaltzattons are not favored. Nken Holder,585 F.3d 878,822 (4th Cir. 2009) (concluding that"a court may guess at what meant say, but must instead restrict itself ^n ^gency to what the agency actually did say"). *9 and may have also failed consider a rclatvely new SSR ruling.a See Radþrd u. Coluin,734 F.3d 288, 295 (4th C:r.. 2013) ("i\ necessary predtcate engaging in substantial evidence review is a record basis ALJ's ruling."); see also Iuþt<ex re/. I-npequ. Barnhart, F.3d 535, (7thCu.2003) (concluding ALJ tequtued to build aloglcal bddge between evidence his conclusions). Remand justifìed on this gtound alone, however, there ate additional teasons, descdbed below, further eroding the confìdence undetsigned ALJ's decision is supported by substantsal evidence.
C. RFC undersigned also has serious concerns about the ,{IJ's RFC determination. "Elh. nature fibromyalgSa means that a patient's ability to perform certaln tasks or postural maneuvers on a glven day does rìot necessarily reflect an ability petform those tasks and maneuvers a sustilned basis." IYinkler Commi¡sioner, Social Sec. Admin, Civil No. S,tG- 1,4-2720, 201,5 WL 4069334, 201.5 VL 4069334, ú x4 P. Md. July 201,5). SSR 12-2p emphasizes "will consider a longitudinal record whenever possible because the symptoms FM [fibromyalgraf can wax and wane so that person may have 'bad days and good days."' SSR 12-2p,201,2 ìfL 3104869, atx6.
Here, the,\LJ failed adequately evaluate the records PlaintifFs treating physician, Dt. Elliot L. Semble, M.D.. met close to fifty tjmes over multi-yeat pedod Dr Semble, Salem Rheumatology, P.À., Winston Salem, Noth Caroltna, where she was Defendant further contends that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate meaningful step three eror ^îy because she has failed articulate specific listing that contends she equals. (Docket Enty at 8.) This line thinking erroneously presumes ALJ's decision at step three is susceptible to substantial evidence review frst instance and that there are othet matedal erots decision warranting remand.
c)
üeated for her fibromyalgia. (r 241,-274,280-83,292-299,303-322,330-55.) The ALJ only mentioned two specific appointments in his decision, ,\ugust 20'1,0 and July 26,20"1.0, and even then only noted that at the former her "pain was severe that she had difficulties perfotming het activities daily living" at lattet she "experienced morning stiffness" but "was doing yo1à," "was independent in her activities daily living," without "joint swelling, muscle soreness," "joint instability," aîd "there was functional range o[motion in all joints," but "[t]here were tender points noted in typical fibromyalgia distribution." (Tt. 22 referenùng261,-63.) The,\LJ also noted generally that "fs]ubsequent medical records" ftom Salem Rheumatology "revealed claimant experienced diffuse musculoskeletal pain, due cold weathet," that she was "prescribed Percocet for pa)n," and that she "continued to experience tender points fìbromyalgia distibution." (Ir. referencing 292-299.) However, "subsequent medical records" which points teFetence only four meetings with Dr. Semble. (Id.) Âlso, the,\LJ ultimately gave "no weight" to Dt. Semble's questionnaire concluding Plaintiff had tender points at least twelve months, musculoskeletal pain,that she could sit and stand less than two hours eight hout day, could rately lift and catry less than ten pounds. Qr.23 referendng324-29.) This description Plaintiffs neady fifty visits Dr. Semble sufficient to permit teview. conclusion that this analysis inadequately evaluated record, thereby ptohibiting substantial evidence review, is futher informed by recent case decided Coutt, Dowell u. Coluin, No. 1:12CV1006, WL 1,524767 (I\,{.D.N.C. April 2,2015). In case, like this one, the claimant's fibromyaþa found two be sevete. Id. 2. The Coutt *11 detetmined a remand in order, in part, because the Court could not discern whether the ALJ took into considetation the claimant's fìbromyalgia related symptoms in arriving at RF'C. Id. at 4. In pertinent part, the Court reasoned that:
ffihile the ÂLJ does have to discuss every piece evidence, the ÂIJ cannot chetry-pick the evidence supports his decision to the exclusion evidence favotable to the claimant. Sæ Cryrska Coluin, No. TMD 12-2238,20131üT,5335406,atx4 (D. Md. Sept. 20, 201.3). This is particulatly troubling in cases fibromyalgia whete the symptoms ate subjective in nature. . Ms. Dowell began treatment with Dr. Semble, rheumatologist, in September 2008. ([t.] at 350 .) \X/hile the ÂLJ noted that Ms. Dowell's pain level from het October visit Dr. Semble was 5/1,0 (id. at1.4), he failed to discuss that Ms. Dowell consistently reported pain to Dt. Semble over more than ten visits from 2008-2010. (Id. at336-51,,398-41,7.) During these visits her pain level continued to inctease, frequently rcaching a level 9/1,0 and 10/10. (Id.) Futther, Dt. Semble's tecords
noted that Ms. Dowell was "severely restricted in physical and
social activities" due to her pain. (See, e.g., Tr. 336, 338, 342, 344,4'1,5,41,3,41,1,.) Because Dr. Semble was tteating specialist, ÂIJ should have provided thotough analysis his treatment and assessmefl.t Ms. Dowell's fibromyaþa and telated
symptoms in his RFC analysis. þuirugu. Astrae, No. 3:11-CV- 1-HEH, 201,2 WT, 4329283, x5 (E.D.Va. Sept. 20, 2012).1
('lX/hen evaluating presence and impact fibromyalgSa, . . . deference the ueating specialist is critical due unique ptoblems evaluating its impact patient" and "because in person assessments . . . represent the best means assessing patient's information.").
Dowell, WL 15241 ú x 4. undersigned concludes eror committed by ,{LJ case neady
identical eror requiring remand Dowe//. In fact, both cases involve ALJ's failure analyze longitudinal record burld logical bddge between the factual determinations legal conclusions so that the administrative decision susceptible further review. *12 Moreover, both cases involve an ALJ's failure to sufficiently evaluate claknant's relationship with her treating physician, Dr. Semble in both cases. Llke Dowell, this case also involves an ÂLJ's failure to acknowledge multiple visits apatnlevel 1,0/1,0 (see, e.!.,Tr.241.,265,273, 292,294,296,31.5, 330,332,334,338,340,342,344,346) and fìndings by úeald;ng physician ^ the claimant was severely restricted in physicaland social activities due to pun (tee, e.g.,Tr. 241.,273,280,282,296,298). Importantly, case temand rnay actually be stronger in this case because SSR 12-2p was available to the.ALJ in this case, but not to ALJ in Dowe//. Thus, this case should have been awate that symptoms fibromyaþa may wax wane, that person suffedng from fibro myalgia may be able do activities one day he could not do on another day, and that given nature fìbromyalgta, an evaluation longitudinal record order. Consequently, same reasons descdbe t¡ Dowell-and because there appears be considetable teason doubt whethet the ALJ applied SSR 12-2p hete-the Court reconunends remand proper coutse case.
D. Credibility
The undersigned also has a serious concern about Plaintiffs ctedibility analysis. The Fourth Circuit Court ,\ppeals has adopted a two-step ptocess by which .,\LJ must evaluate a claknant's symptoms. Frst requires the -,{LJ determine if plaintifls medically documented impairments could teasonably be expected cause plaintifPs alleged 594. The second step includes evaluation subjective symptoms. CraigT6 F.3d ^t evidence, considering claimant's "statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects fclaimant's] symptoms." Id. 595 (citing C.F.R. S$ 416.929(c)(a) and
1,2
a0a.1,529O@.) "The -ÀLJ must considet the following: (1) claimant's testjmony and other statements concerning pain or other subjective complaints; Q) claknant's medical history and objective medical evidence pain; and (4) any othet evidence laboratory fìndings; Q) ""y relevant to severity impairment." Grub@ u. Astrwe, No. 1:09cv364, 2010 WL 5553677 , x3 CX/.D.N.C. Nov. 8, 201.0) (unpublished) (citing CmigT F .3d at 595;20 C.F'.R. $ a0a.1529(c)). "Other evidence" refers to factors such claimant's daily activities, dutation and frequency pain, treatment other than medication received for telief symptoms, and any other measrúes used to relieve claimant's alleged pain. Id. Moreovet, SSR 96-8p tequires that:
The adjudicator must considet all allegations physical and
mental limitations or resttictions and make every reasonable
effot ensure file contains suffìcient evidence assess RF'C. Careful consideration must be given aîy avallable information about symptoms because subjective descriptions may indicate more severe limitations ot restrictions than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone.
SSR 96-8p. Similady, detetmining the credibilìty claimant, SSR 96-7p, insttucts ,\LJ to "consider the entire case record" tequires ctedibility determination "contain specific reasons the finding on credibility, supported by the evidence case record[.]" SSR 96-7p. Ân .,{.LJ's credibility fìnding is entitled "substantial deference." Saye Chater, No. 95-3080,1.997 \XÆ- 232305, atxl (4th Cir. May 1997) (unpublished). undersigned concludes thztpattof ÅLJ's ctedibility analysis case built
upon effoneous-of least unduly speculative-2ss1¡¡¡p¡i6¡. This because -AtJ stated no fewer than four times that Plaintiff testified reported cared mentally *14 handicapped adult sibling. Çr. 21-23.) Howevet, Plaintiff did not so testi$r, but rather testified that she lives in a house het husband-who is currently unemployed-and a mentally handicapped brother who has the "brain of two-year old." (d. at36-37 .) Plaintiff never testifìed that cared for her sibling. Defendant contends that it "was entirely logical for ,ALJ assurne that Plaintiff provided some care for him" given that they lived togethet and that sibling was PlaintifPs custody. (Docket E.rtty 1,3 14-1,5.) It is entirely possible that Plaintiff provides "some care" fot her brothet, although the recotd does not demonstrate what type of care this may be. On other hand, it is also entirely possible that PlaintifPs unemployed husband aids her brother, pethaps that this btother receives some other form of aid. The point here is that eviden ce any these thtee possibilities-or some combination s2¡¡s-is not apparent and, therefore, cannot provide substantial evidence this portion ÀLJ's credibility analysis. Defendant contends il this error, it was hatmless, given the other activities daily living could petform. (Docket Enry at1,4-15, n.1.) undersigned is as confident as Defendantthat this is the case, especially given the considerable emphasis ,\LJ placed PlaintifFs alleged cate fot het brother his decision other errors described hetein. Consequently, the undersigned recofirnends remand the better course here this additional teason.
V. CONCLUSION
None this necessarily means that Plaintiff disabled under Âct undetsigned expresses no opinion on matter. Nevertheless, light all above, undersigned concludes proper course here remand matter fot futthet *15 administrative proceedings. Finally, the undersigned declines consideration the additional issues raise by this time. Hancocþ. Bamhart,206 F . S.tpp. 2d7 ,7 63-64 n.3 flW.D. Ya.2002) (on remand, ALJ's prior decision no preclusive effect, as it vacated and the new headng is conducted de novo).
,\fter a careful consideration evidence recotd, the Court finds that Commissionet's decision supported by substantial evidence. IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED Commissioner's decision finding no disability be REVERSED, that the matter be REMANDED Commissioner under sentence four U.S.C. $ a05(g). To extent, undetsigned RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion forJudgment the Pleadings (Docket E.rtty 1,2)be DENIED, that Plaintiffs Motion fotJudgment on the Pleadings (Docket Enry 9) be GRANTED. To extent Plaintiffls motion seeks immediate award benefits, undetsigned RECOMMENDS it be DENIED.
Thrr$y ofJuly, 201,s.
Jo.
Uni s Magistrate Judge