Cross v. Colvin

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 18 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; GRANTS Plaintiff's 11 motion for judgment on the pleadings; REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner; REMANDS this matter pursu ant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings; and DISMISSES this action from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 4/25/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

JOHN BENTON CROSS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-03654

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
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 then Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin (“Commissioner”).1 (ECF
No. 2.) On April 15, 2016, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J.
Aboulhosn for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 4.)
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on October 31, 2016, recommending that this Court
grant Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, reverse the final decision of the
Commissioner, and remand this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF
No. 18.)
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

1

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

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 November 17, 2016. To date, no
objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 18), GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion
for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 11), 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, 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:

2

April 25, 2017