Burnside v. Berryhill
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER pursuant to the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's 12 request for judgment on the pleadings, to the extent it seeks remand of the Commissioner's de cision; 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; DISMISSES the 2 Complaint; and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 11/27/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
THOMPSON PEARCY BURNSIDE,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-01329
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Thompson Pearcy Burnside’s Complaint seeking review of
the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Nancy A. Berryhill
(“Commissioner”). (ECF No. 2.) On October 20, 2017, the referral in this action was transferred
to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of proposed findings and a
recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 14.) Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed
his PF&R on October 30, 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. 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
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
November 16, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF
No. 12), to the extent it seeks 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, (ECF No. 15), DISMISSES the
Complaint, (ECF No. 2), 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
November 27, 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?