England v. Astrue
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff's 10 Motion for J udgment on the Pleadings be GRANTED, Defendant's 11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in DENIED, the final decision of the Commissioner be REVERSED; this matter be REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Proposed Findings and Recommendation pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g); and this matter be DISMISSED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 8/27/2013. (cc: USMJ VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
SHERRY LYNN ENGLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-cv-04124
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on August 7, 2012, this action was referred to the
Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, 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 August 9, 2013, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 13) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant the Plaintiff=s
motion for judgment on the pleadings (Document 10); deny the Defendant=s motion for judgment
on the pleadings (Document 11); reverse the final decision of the Commissioner; remand this
matter for further proceedings consistent with the Proposed Findings and Recommendation
pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and dismiss the matter from the Court’s
docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due
by August 26, 2013.
1
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).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and
Recommendation. The Court ORDERS that the Plaintiff=s motion for judgment on the pleadings
(Document 10) be GRANTED; the Defendant=s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Document
11) be DENIED; the final decision of the Commissioner be REVERSED; this matter be
REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Proposed Findings and
Recommendation pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and this matter be
DISMISSED from the Court’s docket.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order to Magistrate Judge VanDervort, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:
2
August 27, 2013
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?