Wood v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER adopting 17 Report and Recommendations. ORDER denying 13 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 15 Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment. This court denies and dismisses with prejudice the 1 plaintiff's complaint. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 7/20/11. (jss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
ELKINS

DOUGLAS CLAY WOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-109
(BAILEY)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull. By Local
Rule, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Kaull for submission of a proposed
report and a recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Kaull filed his R&R on June 27,
2011 [Doc. 17]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court dismiss
the plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1].
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), 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. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo
review and the right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v.
1

Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91,
94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Kaull’s R&R were due on July 14,
2011. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the report
and recommendation for clear error.
Upon careful review of the report and recommendation, it is the opinion of this Court
that the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 17] should be, and is,
hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s
report. As such, this Court hereby DENIES and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the
plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1]. Therefore, this matter is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN from
the active docket of this Court.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record.
DATED: July 20, 2011.

2