Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is ORDERED that Magistrate Joel's 16 Report and Recommendation is adopted; Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part; and Defendant's 14 Motion f or Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part and REMANDS with instructions the decision of the Administrative Law Judge to allow the ALJ to sufficiently state specific reasons for his decision to attribute little weight to Dr. Horacek's opinions. This matter is stricken from the active docket of this Court. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 9/4/12. (cnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-16
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge David J. Joel
[Doc. 16]. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge Joel concluded that the Commissioner’s
decision denying Plaintiff’s application for supplemental security income is not supported
by substantial evidence [Id. at 1]. As such, the magistrate judge recommended that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 11] be granted in part and denied in part,
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14] be granted in part and denied in part,
and the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) be remanded with instructions to
allow the ALJ to sufficiently state specific reasons for his decision to attribute little weight
to Dr. Horacek’s opinions [See Doc. 16 at 38-39].
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.
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 within
fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
The magistrate judge entered the R&R on August 13, 2012; service was immediately made
to counsel for the plaintiff. Accordingly, objections were due on August 27, 2012; however,
to date, no objections have been filed.
Upon careful consideration, it is the opinion of this Court that the magistrate judge’s
Report and Recommendation [Doc. 16] should be, and hereby is, ADOPTED for the
reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s report. Accordingly, this Court hereby
GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.
11], GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. 14], and REMANDS with instructions the decision of the Administrative Law Judge
to allow the Administrative Law Judge to sufficiently state specific reasons for his decision
to attribute little weight to Dr. Horacek’s opinions, especially relating to her opinions
regarding the plaintiff’s sitting, walking, and standing limitations. Accordingly, the Court
hereby ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record herein.
DATED: September 4, 2012.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?