Bartoe v. Colvin

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 21 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, denying Plaintiff's 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment, dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's 2 COMPLAINT, and directing the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 9/10/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

CYNTHIA ALICE BARTOE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-06677

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Cynthia A. Bartoe’s Complaint seeking review of the decision
of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin (“Commissioner”) [ECF 2].
By Standing Order entered April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on April 12, 2013, this action was
referred to United States Magistrate R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings
and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge VanDervort filed his PF&R [ECF 21] on
August 19, 2014, recommending that this Court affirm the final decision of the Commissioner and
dismiss this matter from the Court’s docket.
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 the Petitioner’s right to appeal this
Court’s Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir.
1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not

conduct a de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not
direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.”
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections to the PF&R were originally due
on September 5, 2014. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 21], DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings [ECF 13], GRANTS the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings [ECF 20], DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the Complaint [ECF 2], and DIRECTS
the Clerk to remove this case from the Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.

ENTER:

September 10, 2014