Parsons v. Colvin

Filing 17

OPINION AND ORDER granting the Commissioner's objections to the recommendation of the magistrate judge that the case be remanded to the Commission for further development; granting 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; the Report and Recommendations 15 of the magistrate judge is not accepted. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 3/28/2016. (lml)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
BIG STONE GAP DIVISION
ANITA J. PARSONS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14CV00032
OPINION AND ORDER
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge

Robert B. Hines, II, Jonesville, Virginia, for Plaintiff; Nora Koch, Acting
Regional Chief Counsel, Region III, Evelyn Rose Marie Protano, Assistant
Regional Counsel, James McTigue, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for Defendant.
The Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) has filed
timely objections to the Report filed February 24, 2016, setting forth the findings
and recommendations of the magistrate judge, in which it is recommended that the
case be remanded to the Commissioner for further development. The plaintiff has
not filed a timely response to the objections, nor has she objected herself to the
Report.
Based upon my de novo review, and for the reasons stated by the
Commissioner in her objections (ECF No. 16), I find that the Commissioner’s

objections are well founded and should be granted.

Because the magistrate

judge’s rulings that were not objected to otherwise support the factual findings of
the administrative law judge that the claimant was not disabled within the meaning
of the Social Security Act, I find it appropriate to affirm the Commissioner’s
decision denying disability insurance benefits.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that (1) the Commissioner’s objections to the
recommendation of the magistrate judge that the case be remanded to the
Commission for further development are GRANTED; (2) the recommendation of
the magistrate judge that the case be remanded to the Commission for further
development is NOT ACCEPTED; (2) the Motion for Summary Judgment by the
Commissioner is GRANTED; and (3) the decision of the Commissioner is
AFFIRMED.
A separate final Judgment will be entered herewith.

ENTER: March 28, 2016
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge

-2-