Crose v. Colvin

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AND ORDER granting 15 Plaintiffs request for judgment on the pleadings; denying 16 Defendant's 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 PF&R; directing the Clerk to remove this case from the Courts docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 5/24/2017. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmr)

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

JOSEPH ALLEN CROSE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-09245

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Joseph Allen Crose’s Complaint seeking review of the decision
of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”). (ECF No. 2.) By Standing
Order entered January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on September 30, 2016, this action was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of proposed findings
of fact and recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”).

(ECF No. 4.)

Magistrate Judge

Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on April 12, 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. 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
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 were originally
due on May 1, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF
No. 15), DENIES Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner, (ECF No. 16),
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. 18), 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:

May 24, 2017