Massey v. Colvin
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, denying Plaintiff's 11 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, granting Defendant's 12 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S DECISION, affirming the final decision of the Commissioner, and dismissing this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 3/13/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
PARKERSBURG DIVISION
EVELYN SUE MASSEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14-cv-01571
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’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 February 2, 2014, 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 13] on
February 20, 2015, recommending that this 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).
the PF&R were due on March 9, 2015.
Objections to
To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 13], DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings [ECF 11], GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings [ECF 12], AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, and DISMISSES this
matter from the Court’s docket. A separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing
the rulings contained herein.
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 13, 2015
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?