Coleman v. Colvin

Filing 20

ORDER accepting and incorporating the 18 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; GRANTING the Plaintiff's 14 Brief in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings; DENYING the Defendant's 15 Brief in Support of Defendant& #039;s Decision; REVERSING the final decision of the Commissioner; REMANDING the case to an ALJ for further consideration and explanation consistent with this opinion pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); DISMISSING the case with prejudice; and DIRECTING this action to be removed from the docket. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 2/14/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
KEITH KENARD COLEMAN
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-09192

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
ORDER
This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley
for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On January 25, 2018, Judge Tinsley submitted his
Proposed Findings & Recommendations [ECF No. 18] (“PF&R”) and recommended
that the court GRANT the Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings
[ECF No. 14], DENY the Defendant’s Brief in Support of Defendant’s Decision [ECF
No. 15], REVERSE the final decision of the Commissioner, REMAND the case to an
ALJ for further consideration and explanation consistent with this opinion pursuant
to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and DISMISS this matter from the
Court’s docket. Neither party timely filed objections to the PF&R nor sought an
extension of time.

A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, 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).
Because the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court accepts and
incorporates herein the PF&R and orders judgment consistent therewith. The court
GRANTS the Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings [ECF No. 14],
DENIES the Defendant’s Brief in Support of Defendant’s Decision [ECF No. 15],
REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS the case to an ALJ
for further consideration and explanation consistent with this opinion pursuant to
the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), DISMISSES the case with prejudice, and
DIRECTS this action to be removed from the docket.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.

ENTER:

2

February 14, 2018