Nichols v. Colvin

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, denying Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, granting the Commissioner's 12 Request for Judgment on the Pleadings, affirming the final decision of the Commissioner, and dismissing this action from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 6/21/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

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

GARY G. NICHOLS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-03716

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking review of the decision of the
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin (“Commissioner”). (ECF No. 2.)
On March 26, 2015, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke
VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 4.)
On January 5, 2016, the Clerk transferred the referral of this action to United States Magistrate
Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn. (ECF No. 13.) Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R, (ECF
No. 14), on May 25, 2016, 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 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 recommendation.” Orpiano
v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on June 13, 2016. To date, no objections
have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 14), DENIES Plaintiff’s motion
for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 11), GRANTS the Commissioner’s request for judgment
on the pleadings, (ECF No. 12), AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, 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:

June 21, 2016