Wynn v. Berryhill
Filing
20
Order entered Remanding case pursuant to sentence four. Signed by District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon on 01/29/2019. (aab)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
ADRIAN W.1,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 7:17-cv-00402
By: Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge
ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT
In this social security case, plaintiff Adrian W. and defendant Nancy Berryhill, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, both move for summary judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the court referred the
motions to U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou for a report and recommendation (R&R).
On January 2, 2019, the magistrate judge issued his R&R, recommending that the court
grant plaintiff’s motion in part, deny the Commissioner’s motion, and remand the case for further
administrative proceedings. (Dkt. No. 19 at 1.) The magistrate judge also advised the parties of
their right under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) to file written objections to his proposed findings and
recommendations within 14 days of service of the R&R. (Id. at 19.)
The deadline to object to the R&R has passed, and no party has filed an objection. “[I]n
the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but
instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
1
Due to privacy concerns, the court adopts the recommendation of the Committee on Court
Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States that courts use only the first
name and last initial of the claimant in social security opinions.
accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Upon reviewing the record here, the court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the
face of the R&R. Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1.
The R&R (Dkt. No. 19) is ADOPTED;
2.
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 12) is GRANTED IN PART;
3.
The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 14) is DENIED;
4.
The case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with
the R&R, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and
5.
The case is STRUCK from the court’s active docket.
The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to all counsel of record.
Entered: January 29, 2019.
/s/ Elizabeth K. Dillon
Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?