Young v. Colvin

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 12 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge, denying Plaintiff's 10 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, granting Defendant's 11 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S DECISION, affirming the final decision of the Commissioner, and dismissing this matter from the docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 3/17/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

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

PAUL RAYMOND YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-31184

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings,
(ECF 10), and Defendant’s Brief in Support of Defendant’s Decision, (ECF 11). By Standing
Order entered on April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on December 11, 2013, this action was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed
findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF 4.) Magistrate Judge VanDervort
filed his PF&R on February 26, 2015, which recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF 10), grant Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, (ECF 11), affirm the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (the “Commissioner”), and dismiss this matter from the Court’s docket. (ECF 12.)
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 Plaintiff’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 in this case were due by March 16, 2015. To date, no objections
were filed.
Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings, (ECF 10), GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF 11),
AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, and DISMISSES this action from the docket
of the Court.
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:

March 17, 2015