Runyon v. Colvin

Filing 17

ORDER accepting and incorporating the 16 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; the court GRANTS Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to the extent that it requests remand of the Commissioner's dec ision; DENIES Defendant's 13 request to affirm the decision of 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 PF&R; and DISMISSES with prejudice this action from the docket of the court. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 10/12/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mks)

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-09668

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Defendant.

ORDER
This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert
for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On June 29, 2017, Judge Eifert submitted her Proposed
Findings & Recommendations [ECF No. 16] (“PF&R”) and recommended that the
court GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, [ECF No. 12], to the
extent that it requests remand of the Commissioner's decision; DENY Defendant's
request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner, [ECF No. 13]; REVERSE the final
decision of the Commissioner; REMAND this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the PF&R; and
DISMISS this action from the docket of the court.
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 Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, [ECF No. 12], to the
extent that it requests remand of the Commissioner's decision; DENIES Defendant's
request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner, [ECF No. 13]; 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, and DISMISSES with prejudice this action from the docket of the court.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.

ENTER:

2

October 12, 2017