Lambert v. Berryhill

Filing 17

ORDER adopting the 16 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; denying Plaintiff's 10 request for judgment on the pleadings; granting Defendant's 15 request for judgment on the pleadings; affirming the final decision of the Commissioner; and dismissing this action from the docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 12/20/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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

DONALD A. LAMBERT,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-00616

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

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF No.
10), and Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF No. 15). By Standing Order
entered on January 4, 2017, and filed in this case on January 18, 2017, this action was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and a
recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 3.) Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her
PF&R on November 20, 2017, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s request for judgment
on the pleadings, (ECF No. 10), grant Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the
Commissioner, (ECF No. 15), affirm the final decision of the Commissioner, and dismiss this
action from the docket of the Court. (ECF No. 16.)
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 Plaintiff’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 in this case were due on December 7, 2017. (ECF No. 16.) To
date, Plaintiff has failed to submit any objections in response to the PF&R, thus constituting a
waiver of de novo review and Plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s order.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 16), DENIES Plaintiff’s request
for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 10), GRANTS Defendant’s request for judgment on the
pleadings, (ECF No. 15), AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, and DISMISSES
this action from the docket of the Court.
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:

December 20, 2017