Young v. Colvin

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; denying Claimant's 13 request for judgment on the pleadings; granting the Commissioner's 14 request for judgment on the pleadings; affirming the final decision of the Commissioner; and dismissing this action from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 5/31/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
JAMES ANDERSON YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-12085

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff James Anderson Young’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 December 14, 2016,
this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of
proposed findings and recommendation (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 4.) Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn
filed his PF&R on May 1, 2017, recommending that this Court deny Claimant’s request for
judgment on the pleadings and grant the Commissioner’s request for affirmance of her final
decision. (ECF No. 15.)
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

1

Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on January 23, 2017, replacing
the former Social Security Commissioner, Carolyn W. Colvin, as the original Defendant in this case.
Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Acting Commissioner 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 originally
due on May 18, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, DENIES Claimant’s request for judgment
on the pleadings, (ECF No. 13), GRANTS the Commissioner’s for judgment on the pleadings,
(ECF No. 14), AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, 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
unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

May 31, 2017