Horner v. Berryhill

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting and incorporating the 18 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; directing that the plaintiff's 15 brief/motion for judgment on the pleadings be DENIED and that the defendant� 39;s 16 brief/motion for judgment on the pleadings be GRANTED; the final decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED and that this action be DISMISSED from the Court's docket; the plaintiff's 14 brief/motion for judgment on the pleadings be TERMINATED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 8/17/2018. (cc: Magistrate Judge Tinsley; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
RANDALL ALAN HORNER,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-02444

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on April 24, 2017, this action was referred to the
Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed
findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On July 27,
2018, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 18) wherein
it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s brief/motion for judgment on the pleadings, grant the
Defendant’s brief/motion for judgment on the pleadings, affirm the final decision of the Commissioner, and
dismiss this action from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and
Recommendation were due by August 13, 2018.
Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and
Recommendation. 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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); see also Camby v. Davis,
718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983) (holding that districts courts may adopt proposed findings and
recommendations without explanation in the absence of objections).

1

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the
Plaintiff’s brief/motion for judgment on the pleadings (Document 15) be DENIED and that the Defendant’s
brief/motion for judgment on the pleadings (Document 16) be GRANTED. The Court further ORDERS
that the final decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED and that this action be DISMISSED from the
Court’s docket.
In his Proposed Findings and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge stated, by footnote, that the
Plaintiff’s brief in support of motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed twice, initially on August 24,
2017 (Document 14), and again on September 1, 2017 (Document 15). The Magistrate Judge further noted
that his Proposed Findings and Recommendation would consider the later filing (Document 15). There
having been no objection to the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and in view of the rulings
contained herein, the Court ORDERS that the Plaintiff’s brief/motion for judgment on the pleadings
(Document 14) be TERMINATED AS MOOT.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order
to Magistrate Judge Tinsley, to counsel of record, and to any unrepresented party.

ENTER:

2

August 17, 2018