Coffman v. Colvin
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; denying the plaintiff's 12 request for judgment on the pleadings; granting the Commissioner's 13 request for judgment on the pl eadings; 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 1/4/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
EDWARD JAMES COFFMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-00597
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.) By Standing Order entered January 6, 2016, and filed in this case on January 21, 2016, this
action was referred to United States Magistrate Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed
findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 4.) Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her
PF&R on November 30, 2016, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s request for judgment
on the pleadings, (ECF No. 12), grant Defendant’s request to affirm the Commissioner’s decision,
(ECF No. 13), and dismiss this action from the Court’s docket. (ECF No. 15.)
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 December 19, 2016. To date, no
objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 15), DENIES Plaintiff’s request
for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 12), and GRANTS the Commissioner’s request for
judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 13.) Further, the Court 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:
January 4, 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?