Warner v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S OPINION/REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 18 AND REMANDING THE CASE. Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; DENIES 15 Motion for Summary Judgment. REMANDS this civil action to the Commissioner for further action in accordance with the recommendations contained in the R&R. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 8/25/2015. (Copy counsel of record)(jmm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
FREDDY C. WARNER, JR.,
Plaintiff,

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14CV113
(Judge Keeley)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY.
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S OPINION/REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING THE CASE
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the
Report and Recommendation (dkt. no. 18). Pursuant to this Court’s
Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge James E.
Seibert for submission of a proposed report and recommendation
(“R&R”). On August 5, 2015, Magistrate Judge Seibert filed his R&R
recommending that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be
denied, the Plaintiff’s motion for Summary Judgment be granted in
part and denied in part, and that the “case be remanded to the ALJ
[Administrative Law Judge] for the limited purpose of a complete
discussion as to whether the Plaintiff’s impairments meet the
requirements of Listing 12.05C.” (R&R at 16). It also directed the
parties, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Rule 6(e),
Fed. R. Civ. P., to file any written objections with the Clerk of
Court within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of
the R&R.

WARNER V. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

1:14CV113

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), this Court is required to
make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge’s
findings to which objection is made. However, the Court is not
required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the
factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those
portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections
are

addressed.

Thomas

v.

474

Arn,

U.S.

140,

150

(1985).

In

addition, failure to file objections constitutes a waiver of de
novo review and the right to appeal this Court’s Order. See U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir.
1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).
Here, objections to the R&R were due within fourteen (14) days
of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b). The docket reflects that the R&R was entered on August 5,
2015 (dkt.

no. 18) and, as of this date, the parties have not

filed any objections. Accordingly this Court will review the R&R
for clear error.
After careful review of the R&R, it is the opinion of this
Court that Magistrate Judge Seibert’s Report and Recommendation
(dkt. no. 18) should be, and, is, ADOPTED for the reasons more
fully stated therein. Therefore, the Court
2

WARNER V. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

1:14CV113

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
1.

DENIES the Defendant’s motion for Summary Judgment (dkt.
no. 15);

2.

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the plaintiff's motion
for Summary Judgment (dkt. no. 13); and

3.

REMANDS this civil action to the Commissioner for further
action in accordance with the recommendations contained
in the R&R

It is so ORDERED.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit copies of this Order
to all counsel of record.
DATED: August 25, 2015.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3