Arbaugh v. Berryhill

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER the Court ADOPTS the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; DENIES Plaintiff's 10 request for judgment on the pleadings; GRANTS Defendant's 11 request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner; AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner; and DISMISSES this matter from this Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston 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

LAURIE JO ARBAUGH,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-01878

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Laurie Jo Arbaugh’s (“Claimant”) Complaint seeking review
of the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Nancy A. Berryhill, denying
the Claimant’s application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. By Standing Order entered March 14, 2017, (ECF No. 3), this
case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn to consider the pleadings
and evidence, and to submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations (PF&R) for
disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R
on August 31, 2017, recommending that this Court deny Claimant’s request for judgment on the
pleadings, (ECF No. 10), and grant Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the
Commissioner, (ECF No. 11).
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 originally
due on September 18, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, DENIES Plaintiff’s request for judgment on
the pleadings, (ECF No. 10), GRANTS Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the
Commissioner, (ECF No. 11), AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, and
DISMISSES this matter from this 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:

October 12, 2017