Ash v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is the opinion of this Courtthat the magistrate judges Report and Recommendation 17 should be, and is,hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judges report. As such, th is Court hereby GRANTS the plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 10 and DENIES the defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 12 . Accordingly, this Court hereby REMANDS the plaintiffs Complaint 1 to the Commissioner of Social Security. Therefore, this matter is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 5/7/14. (jss)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
TRINA MAY ASH,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-47
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security,
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 James E. Seibert. By
Local Rule, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Seibert for submission of a
proposed report and a recommendation (“R & R”). Magistrate Judge Seibert filed his R&R
on April 15, 2014 [Doc. 17]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this
Court deny the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, grant the plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment and remand the action to the Commissioner of Social Security.
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 Seibert’s R&R were due by April
29, 2014. 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. 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 GRANTS the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. 10] and DENIES the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 12].
Accordingly, this Court hereby REMANDS the plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1] to the
Commissioner of Social Security. 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: May 7, 2014.
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?