Aldridge v. Colvin
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; reversing the final decision of the Commissioner; remanding this case for further proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and directing this case removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/17/2015. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
ANDREW CRAIG ALDRIDGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-24814
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
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 1]. On August 21,
2014, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of
proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R
[ECF 10] on July 16, 2015, recommending that this Court reverse the final decision of the
Commissioner, remand this case for further proceedings, 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 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 were due on August 3, 2015. To date, no objections have been
filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 10], REVERSES the final decision of
the Commissioner, REMANDS this case for further proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case 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:
August 17, 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?