Wallace v. Colvin

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, granting Plaintiff's 10 Motion for judgment on the pleadings, denying the Commissioner's 11 Request for judgment on the pleadings , remanding this matter for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and dismissing this action from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 2/25/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

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

RONETTE K. WALLACE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-01762

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking judicial review of the decision
of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin (“Commissioner”). (ECF No.
2.) On February 17, 2015, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L.
Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 4.)
Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R, (ECF No. 14), on February 1, 2016, recommending that
this Court reverse the final decision of the Commissioner and remand this matter pursuant to
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
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 a party’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 on February 19, 2016. To date, no
objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R (ECF No. 14), GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion
for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 10), DENIES the Commissioner’s request for judgment
on the pleadings (ECF No. 11), REMANDS this matter for further administrative proceedings
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and DISMISSES this action 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:

2

February 25, 2016