McBee v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is ORDERED that Magistrate Kaull's 15 Report and Recommendation is adopted; Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment is denied; Defendant's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The Clerk shall enter judgment for the Defendant and this matter is stricken from the active docket. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 4/2/13. (cnd)

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

DOYLE EDWARD MCBEE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-64
(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 (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull
[Doc. 15]. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge Kaull concluded that the Commissioner’s
decision denying Plaintiff’s application for supplemental security income is supported by
substantial evidence [Id. at 46].

As such, the magistrate judge recommended that

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 13] be granted and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. 11] be denied [Id.].
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
1

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 Kaull’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 March 11, 2013; service was immediately made
to counsel for the plaintiff. 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. 15] should be, and hereby is, ADOPTED for the
reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s report. Accordingly, this Court hereby
GRANTS the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 13] and DENIES the
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 11].

Accordingly, the Court hereby

ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. The Clerk
is directed to enter a separate judgment in favor of the defendant.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record herein.
DATED: April 2, 2013.

2