Lincoln v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: denying 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 18 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court further ORDERS that this matter be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from this Courts active docket. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter a separate order of judgment in favor of the Defendant. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 12/9/15. copy mailed to pro se pla. via cert. return rec't mail(njz) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/9/2015: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (njz).

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

RICHARD DOUGLAS LINCOLN,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:15-CV-30
(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 [ECF No. 20], entered on September 24, 2015, to which neither party filed
objections.
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 R&R to which objection is made. However, failure to file
objections permits the district court to review the R&R under the standard that it
believes to be appropriate, and under this circumstance, the parties’ right to de novo
review is waived. See Webb v. Califano, 468 F. Supp. 825, 830-31 (E.D. Cal. 1979).
Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Seibert’s R&R, as well as 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), objections were due within fourteen plus three
days after entry of the R&R. Accordingly, because no objections have been filed, this
Court will review the R&R for clear error.

In this matter, Magistrate Judge Seibert found that substantial evidence supports
the findings of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”).

Specifically, Magistrate Judge

Seibert found that the ALJ’s determination that the Plaintiff was not disabled prior to
January 12, 2013, but became disabled on that date and remained disabled through the
date of the ALJ’s February 25, 2014 decision, is supported by substantial evidence and
in accordance with social security regulations.
Accordingly, it is the opinion of this Court that Magistrate Judge Seibert’s Report
and Recommendation [ECF No. 20] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED.
For the reasons more fully stated in the Report and Recommendation, this Court
ORDERS that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 17] is DENIED
and the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 18] is GRANTED. The
Court further ORDERS that this matter be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and
STRICKEN from this Court’s active docket.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter
a separate order of judgment in favor of the Defendant.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record
and the pro se Plaintiff.
DATED: December 9, 2015

2