Russell v. Commissioner of Social Security et al

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 4 Report and Recommendations. For reasons more fully stated in the Report and Recommendation, this Court ORDERS that the action be DISMISSED. Accordingly, this Court further ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the docket of this Court. Signed by District Judge Gina M. Groh on 9/27/2013. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff by CMRR.(cwm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/27/2013: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (cwm).

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

MICHAEL WESLEY RUSSELL,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-99
(JUDGE GROH)

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 (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert
[Doc. 4], filed on September 9, 2013, to which neither party filed objections.1 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, failure to file
objections to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendation permits the
District Court to review the recommendation under the standards that the District Court
believes are appropriate, and under these circumstances, the parties’ right to de novo
review is waived. See Webb v. Califano, 468 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Cal. 1979). The R&R
specifically stated that objections were to be filed within fourteen days after being served
with a copy of the R&R. Accordingly, because no objections have been filed, this R&R will
be reviewed for clear error.

1

Pursuant to the magistrate judge’s R&R, as well as 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C) and FED. R.
CIV. P. 6(d), objections were due fourteen plus three days after entry of the R&R, or by
September 26, 2013.

In this matter, the magistrate judge found that on September 3, 2013, the Court
received a document from Michael Wesley Russell that appeared to be a request for
judicial review of an adverse decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, and the
Court filed it as such. However, Michael Wesley Russell actually sent the document to the
Clerk to indicate his disabilities in order to be excused from jury duty. Accordingly, the
magistrate judge recommended that the action be dismissed.
Upon review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and
Recommendation [Doc. 4] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED. For the
reasons more fully stated in the Report and Recommendation, this Court ORDERS that the
action be DISMISSED. Accordingly, this Court further ORDERS that this matter be
STRICKEN from the docket of this Court.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record and any
pro se parties.
DATED: September 27, 2013

2