Lester-Muncy v. Colvin
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the factual and legal analysis contained within the PF&R; GRANTS 10 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; DENIES Defendant's 13 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings; and REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner; REMANDS the case for further proceedings; and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 3/18/2016. (cc: counsel of record) (mk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
SHANNON LOIS LESTER-MUNCY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:14-28804
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this action was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of
findings and recommendations regarding disposition, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
(Doc. No. 4).
Magistrate Judge
Tinsley submitted his Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(“PF&R”) to the court on February 29, 2016, in which he
recommended that the district court grant plaintiff’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings, deny defendant’s motion for judgment
on the pleadings, reverse the final decision of the
Commissioner, remand the case for further proceedings, and
dismiss this matter from the court’s docket.1
(Doc. No. 14 at
12).
1
Both parties submitted briefs in support of their respective
positions; the Magistrate Judge construed these briefs as
motions for judgment on the pleadings.
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing
days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge
Tinsley’s PF&R.
The failure of any party to file such
objections constitutes a waiver of such party’s right to a de
novo review by this court.
Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363
(4th Cir. 1989).
The parties failed to file any objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s PF&R within the seventeen-day period.
Having reviewed
the PF&R filed by Magistrate Judge Tinsley, the court adopts the
findings and recommendation contained therein.
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the factual and legal
analysis contained within the PF&R, GRANTS plaintiff’s motion
for judgment on the pleadings, (Doc. No. 10), DENIES defendant’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings, (Doc. No. 13), REVERSES
the final decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS the case for
further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the
court’s docket.
The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to all counsel of record.
2
It is SO ORDERED this 18th day of March, 2016.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?