King v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court GRANTS the defendant's motion to remand 16 ; DENIES the plaintiff's motion to remand for the sole purpose of calculating benefits 18 ; DENIES AS MOOT the pla intiff's motion for summary judgment 10 , motion to proffer evidence 12 , and motion to delay the remand order 17 ; REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner and REMANDS the case for further proceedings; DISMISSES this civil action WITH PREJUDICE and ORDERS it STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 1/22/2016. (kd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
EDWARD ALLEN KING,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15CV45
(Judge Keeley)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
OPINION/REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for
consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable
Robert W. Trumble, United States Magistrate Judge (“R&R”) (Dkt. No.
20), dated January 7, 2016.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C),

this Court is required to review de novo those portions of the
magistrate judge’s findings to which objection is made. Failure to
file objections to the R&R permits the District Court to review the
recommendation under the standards that the District Court believes
are appropriate, and under these circumstances, the parties’ right
to de novo review is waived.
(E.D.

Cal.

1979).

To

See Webb v. Califano, 468 F.Supp. 825

date,

no

objections

have

been

filed.

Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.

Id.

Upon review of the R&R and the record, it is the opinion of
this Court that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

KING V. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

1:15CV45

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(Dkt. No. 20) should be, and, is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the
reasons more fully stated therein.

Therefore, the Court

1.

GRANTS the defendant's motion to remand (Dkt. No. 16);

2.

DENIES the plaintiff's motion to remand for the sole
purpose of calculating benefits (Dkt. No. 18);

3.

DENIES

AS

MOOT

the

plaintiff’s

motion

for

summary

judgment (Dkt. No. 10), motion to proffer evidence (Dkt.
No. 12), and motion to delay the remand order (Dkt. No.
17);
4.

REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner and REMANDS the
case for further proceedings;

5.

DISMISSES this civil action WITH PREJUDICE and ORDERS it
STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.

It is so ORDERED.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit copies of this Order
to counsel of record.
DATED: January 22, 2016.

/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2