Hackney v. Colvin

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER pursuant to the 20 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; the Court GRANTS Claimant's 15 request for judgment on the pleadings; DENIES Defendant's 18 request to affirm the decision o f the Commissioner; 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 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; and DISMISSES this action from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 4/7/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION GREGORY PAUL HACKNEY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-04882 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Gregory Paul Hackney’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 June 1, 2016, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of proposed findings and recommendation (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 4.) Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on December 23, 2016, 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. 20.) 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 January 9, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Claimant’s request for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 15), DENIES Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner, (ECF No. 18), 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. 20), 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: April 7, 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?