Kimble v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court ORDERS that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 15 ] should be, and is, hereby ADOPTED. The Court further ORDERS that the Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 12 ] is GRANTED and t he Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 9] is DENIED. This matter is hereby DISMISSED and is retired from this Courtsactive docket. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter a separate judgment order in favor of the Defendant. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 6/27/2016. (cmd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
MELANIE JANE KIMBLE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:15-CV-71
(GROH)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [ECF No. 15] of United States Magistrate Judge
Michael John Aloi. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Aloi recommends that this Court grant
the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 12] because substantial evidence
supported the Administrative Law Judge’s denial of the Plaintiff’s application for disability
insurance benefits. Magistrate Judge Aloi further recommends that the Court deny the
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 9] and dismiss the instant civil action.
For the following reasons, Magistrate Judge Aloi’s R&R is hereby ADOPTED and this case
is DISMISSED.
In reviewing an R&R, this Court is required, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, to conduct
a de novo review of those portions of a 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). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo
review and of a party’s 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); Webb v. Califano, 468 F. Supp. 825, 830-31 (E.D. Cal. 1979). In this
case, Magistrate Judge Aloi issued his R&R on May 27, 2016. As of the date of this Order,
no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error.
Upon careful consideration of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation
and the remainder of the record in this case, this Court finds no clear error. The Court
ORDERS that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 15] should be, and is, hereby
ADOPTED.

The Court further ORDERS that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [ECF No. 12] is GRANTED and the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[ECF No. 9] is DENIED. This matter is hereby DISMISSED and is retired from this Court’s
active docket.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter a
separate judgment order in favor of the Defendant.
The Clerk is further DIRECTED to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of
record herein.
DATED: June 27, 2016

2