Foster v. Colvin
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; granting Plaintiff's 7 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings in so far it requests remand; denying Defendant's 9 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S DECISION; reversing the final decision of the Commissioner; remanding this case pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the PF&R; dismissing this action from the docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/19/2015. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (tmh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
CECIL ALLEN FOSTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-24973
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“Plaintiff’s
Motion”), (ECF No. 7), and Defendant’s Brief in Support of Defendant’s Decision (“Defendant’s
Brief”), (ECF No. 9). By Standing Order entered on May 7, 2014 and filed in this case on August
22, 2014, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for
submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 3.)
Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R on July 28, 2015, which recommends that this Court grant
Plaintiff’s Motion to the extent that it requests remand, deny Defendant’s Brief, reverse the final
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”),
remand this case, and dismiss this matter from the Court’s docket. (ECF No. 10 at 59.)
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 August 14, 2015. To date, no objections
were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 10), GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion
insofar as it requests remand, (ECF No. 7), DENIES Defendant’s Brief, (ECF No. 9),
REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS this case pursuant to the fourth
sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the PF&R, 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:
August 19, 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?