Thomas v. Colvin
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; GRANTING the Claimant's 11 request for judgment on the pleadings to the extent he seeks a remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); DENYING Defendant's 12 request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner; REVERSING the final decision of the Commissioner; REMANDING this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the 13 PF&R; and DISMISSING this action from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/9/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mks)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARK ANTHONY THOMAS,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-03607
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Mark Anthony Thomas’s (“Claimant”) Complaint seeking
review of the decision of then Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin
(“Commissioner”).1 (ECF No. 2.) By Standing Order filed in this case on April 13, 2016, this
action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of
proposed findings and recommendation (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 4.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed
his PF&R on July 21, 2017, recommending that this Court reverse the final decision of the
Commissioner, remand this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and dismiss
this action from the Court’s docket. (ECF No. 13.)
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
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 August 7, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Claimant’s request for judgment on the pleadings to the
extent he seeks a remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), (ECF No. 11), DENIES
Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner, (ECF No. 12), REVERSES the
final decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the PF&R, (ECF No. 13), 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
August 9, 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?