Thaxton v. Colvin
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; denying the plaintiff's 10 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting the defendant's 13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadi ngs; affirming the final decision of the Commissioner; dismissing the 2 complaint; and directing this case removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 1/23/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
BENJAMIN ALLEN THAXTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-00281
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Benjamin Allen Thaxton’s Complaint seeking review of the
decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin (“Commissioner”)
(ECF No. 2). By Standing Order entered January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on January 14,
2016, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission
of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R
(ECF No. 14) on January 3, 2017, 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). Objections to the PF&R were originally
due on January 20, 2017. 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. 10), GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (ECF No. 13), AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, DISMISSES the
Complaint (ECF No. 2), and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case 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
January 23, 2017
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?