Jackson v. Colvin

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; granting defendant's 12 Brief in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings; denying plaintiff's 11 Brief in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings; affirming the final decision of the Commissioner; dismissing the 2 Complaint; directing Clerk to remove this case from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 4/17/2017. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmr)

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

GARY JOSEPH JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-03116

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Gary Joseph Jackson’s Complaint seeking review of the
decision of then Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin (“Commissioner”)
(ECF No. 2).1 By Standing Order entered January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on April 1, 2016,
this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of
proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his
PF&R (ECF No. 15) on October 12, 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

1

Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on January 23, 2017, replacing the former
Social Security Commissioner, Carolyn W. Colvin, the original Defendant in this case. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Ms. Berryhill is automatically substituted as the Defendant.

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 October 31, 2016. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R (ECF No. 15), GRANTS Defendant’s Brief
in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 12), DENIES Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of
Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 11), 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

April 17, 2017