Moore v. Berryhill
Filing
24
ORDER accepting and incorporating the 23 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; the court GRANTS the plaintiff's 16 request for judgment on the pleadings to the extent that it requests remand of the Commissioner's decision; DENIES the defendant's 17 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 this action from the court's docket. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 2/13/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
TAMMI JO MOORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-01391
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 January 24, 2018 Judge Eifert submitted her
Proposed Findings & Recommendations [ECF No. 23] (“PF&R”) and recommended
that the court GRANT the plaintiff’s request for judgment on the pleadings [ECF No.
16] to the extent that it requests remand of the Commissioner’s decision; DENY the
defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner [ECF No. 17];
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 court’s docket. Neither party
timely filed objections to the PF&R nor sought an extension of time.
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 the plaintiff’s request for judgment on the pleadings to the extent that it
requests remand of the Commissioner’s decision; DENIES the defendant’s 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 this action from the court’s docket. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to
send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:
2
February 13, 2018
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?