Harris v. Colvin
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 23 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; the Court GRANTS Claimant's 15 request for judgment on the pleadings; DENIES Defendant's 16 request to remand the matter back to the Commissioner; REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner; REMANDS this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for an award of benefits; and DISMISSES this action from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 10/5/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
ROGER LEE HARRIS,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-09528
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Roger Lee Harris’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 October 13, 2016, this
action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of
proposed findings and recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R
on June 12, 2017, recommending that this Court reverse the final decision of the Commissioner,
remand this matter for an award of benefits pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and
dismiss this action from the Court’s docket. (ECF No. 23.)
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
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 due on June
29, 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 remand the matter back to 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 an award of benefits, 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
October 5, 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?