Bolyard v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation 13 should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judges report. As such, this Court hereby GRANTS the plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 9 and DENIES the defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 11 . 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 District Judge John Preston Bailey on 4/3/17. (jss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
ELKINS
MICHAEL K. BOLYARD,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-28
(BAILEY)

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
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.
13]. 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 March 17, 2017, wherein he recommends this Court deny
the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and grant the plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment.
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 finding 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 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
1

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 service. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review
the R&R for clear error.
Upon careful review, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and
Recommendation [Doc. 13] 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. 9] and DENIES the
defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 11]. 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 all counsel of record herein.
DATED: April 3, 2017.

2