Geissler v. Colvin

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; GRANTING Claimant's 7 Brief for Judgment on the Pleadings to the extent it seeks remand; DENYING Defendant's 8 Brief in Suppo rt of the Final Decision; REVERSING the final decision of the Commissioner; REMANDING this case for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 § U.S.C. 405(g); DISMISSING this matter; and DIRECTING the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/21/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mks)

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

KENNETH EARL GEISSLER,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-06590

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Kenneth Earl Geissler’s (“Claimant”) Complaint seeking
review of the decision of then Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin
(“Defendant”) (ECF No. 1).1 By Standing Order entered January 4, 2016, and filed in this case
on July 22, 2016, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for
submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”).

Magistrate Judge Tinsley

filed his PF&R (ECF No. 10) on July 31, 2017, recommending that this Court GRANT Claimant’s
Brief in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings to the extent it seeks remand, DENY the
Defendant’s Brief in Support of the Final Decision, REVERSE the final decision of the
Commissioner, REMAND this case for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 §
U.S.C. 405(g), and DISMISS this matter from the Court’s docket.

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.

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 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 in this case were
due on August 17, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R (ECF No. 10), GRANTS Claimant’s Brief
for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 7) to the extent it seeks remand, DENIES Defendant’s
Brief in Support of the Final Decision (ECF No. 8), REVERSES the final decision of the
Commissioner, REMANDS this case for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 §
U.S.C. 405(g), DISMISSES this matter, 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

August 21, 2017

3