Stump v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DKT. NO. 15 , DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DKT. NO. 12 , AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DKT. NO. 13 . The Court dismisses this civil action with prejudice and directs that it be stricken from the Court's active docket. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter a separate judgment order. Signed by Senior Judge Irene M. Keeley on 2/14/18. (jss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
PATTY JOE STUMP,
Plaintiff,
v.

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16CV238
(Judge Keeley)

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 15], DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 12], AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 13]
On

December

20,

2016,

the

plaintiff,

Patty

Joe

Stump

(“Stump”), filed a complaint against the defendant, the Acting
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) (Dkt. No. 1).
Stump sought review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying
her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) due to degenerative disc
disease

of

the

lumbar

spine,

hypertension,

kidney

infection,

obesity, cauda equina syndrome, low IQ, and incontinence. Id. at 12. According to Stump, the Commissioner’s decision denying her
benefits “is not supported by substantial evidence.” Id. at 3. The
Commissioner answered the complaint and filed the administrative
record on March 24, 2017 (Dkt. Nos. 9, 10).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the matter
was referred to the Honorable James E. Seibert, United States
Magistrate Judge for initial review.

STUMP V. BERRYHILL

1:16CV238

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 15], DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 12], AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 13]
In a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated August 30, 2017,
Magistrate Judge Seibert recommended that the Court deny Stump’s
motion for summary judgment and grant the Commissioner’s motion for
summary judgment (Dkt. No. 15). Following a careful review of the
record, he concluded that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision
to deny benefits was supported by substantial evidence.
The R&R informed the parties of their right to file “written
objections

identifying

the

portions

of

the

Report

and

Recommendations to which objection is made, and the basis for such
objection.” Id. at 10. It further warned that failure to do so
would result in waiver of the right to appeal. Id. Despite receipt
of the R&R, neither party filed objections to the recommendation.
“The Court will review de novo any portions of the magistrate
judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is
made...and the Court may adopt, without explanation, any of the
magistrate judge’s recommendations to which the prisoner does not
object.” Dellacirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F. Supp. 2d 600, 603-04
(N.D.W. Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th
Cir. 1983)). Failure to file specific objections waives appellate
review of both factual and legal questions. See United States v.

2

STUMP V. BERRYHILL

1:16CV238

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 15], DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 12], AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 13]
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984); see also Moore v.
United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
Having received no objections to the R&R, the Court has no
duty to conduct a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Seibert’s
findings. Furthermore, following a review of the R&R and the record
for clear error, the Court:
1)

ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 15);

2)

DENIES Stump’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 12);

3)

GRANTS the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Dkt. No. 13); and

4)

DISMISSES this civil action WITH PREJUDICE and DIRECTS
that it be stricken from the Court’s active docket.

It is so ORDERED.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of
Court to enter a separate judgment order and to transmit copies of
both orders to counsel of record.
Dated: February 14, 2018.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3