Kimble v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 4

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation that Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed as a Pauper be Denied 3 and is ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judges report. Accordingly, the Application to Proceed as a Pauper 2 is DENIED, and this Court ORDERS that the plaintiff pay the $400 filing fee. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 4/15/14. (jss)

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

SHERYL JOY KIMBLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-11
(BAILEY)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert [Doc.
3]. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, 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 February 7, 2014, wherein he recommends this Court deny
the plaintiff’s motion to proceed as a pauper and that she be required to pay the $400 filing
fee.
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 within
fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
The plaintiff is represented by counsel, so service was accepted upon filing on this Court’s
electronic filing system. No objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review
the R&R for clear error.
Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and
Recommendation that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed as a Pauper be Denied [Doc. 3] should
be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the
magistrate judge’s report. Accordingly, the Application to Proceed as a Pauper [Doc. 2]
is DENIED, and this Court ORDERS that the plaintiff pay the $400 filing fee.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record.
DATED: April 15, 2014.