Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER adopting 16 Report and Recommendations. Order denying plaintiff's 10 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting defendant's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment. This Court hereby DENIES and DISMISSES the plaintiffs Complaint 1 and this matter is ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendant. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 6/8/12. (jss)

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

GLENN D. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-107
(BAILEY)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
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 David J. Joel. By Local
Rule, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Joel for submission of a proposed report
and a recommendation (“R & R”). Magistrate Judge Joel filed his R&R on May 16, 2012
[Doc. 16]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court affirm the
decision of the Administrative Law Judge and 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 Joel’s R&R were due by June 4,
2012. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R
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. 16] 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 the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. 10] and GRANTS the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14].
Accordingly, this Court hereby DENIES and DISMISSES the plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1].
Therefore, this matter is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this
Court. Finally, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendant.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record.
DATED: June 8, 2012.

2