Pritt v. Colvin

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 20 Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The Court ORDERS that : the Plaintiff's 10 MOTION for Remand be GRANTED; the Defendant's 17 & 18 motion for judgment on the pleadings be DENIED; the final decision of the Commission be REVERSED; this matter be REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) for further admi nistrative proceedings consistent with the 20 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; and that this action be DISMISSED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 06/23/2014. (cc: Judge; USMJ Eifert; counsel; any unrepresented party) (msa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION

DEBRA L. PRITT,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-cv-10036

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on May 3, 2013, this action was referred to the
Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, 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 June 3, 2014, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 20) wherein it is recommended that this Court: grant the Plaintiff’s
motion for remand; deny the Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings; reverse the final
decision of the Commission; remand this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
for further administrative proceedings consistent with the Proposed Findings and
Recommendation; and dismiss this action from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate
Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by June 20, 2014.

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 remand (Document 10)
be GRANTED; the Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Documents 17 & 18) be
DENIED; the final decision of the Commission be REVERSED; this matter be REMANED
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent
with the Proposed Findings and Recommendation; and this action 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 Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

June 23, 2014