Goss v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Seibert's 14 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED; the Commissioner's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; and Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART. This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further action. Signed by District Judge John Preston Bailey on 5/9/16. (cnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
ELKINS
JANET ARLENE GOSS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-55
(BAILEY)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security Administration,
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.
14]. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge
Seibert for submission of a proposed Report and Recommendation (“R & R”). Magistrate
Judge Seibert filed his R&R on April 19, 2016, wherein he recommends this Court deny
Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin’s (“the Commissioner”) Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. 11], and that Plaintiff Janet Arlene Goss’s (“Goss”) Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. 9] be granted in part, and that this matter should be remanded to the Commissioner
for further action in accordance with the R&R.
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 docket reflects that the R&R was electronically mailed to all counsel of record on April
19, 2016, and that service was accepted the same day [Doc. 14]. To date, 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 [Doc. 14] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the
reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s report.
Accordingly, this Court ORDERS that the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. 11] is DENIED, and that Plaintiff Goss’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. 9] is GRANTED IN PART. This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for
further action in accordance with the R&R.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record.
DATED: May 9, 2016.