Guy v. Colvin

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 17 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; the Court ORDERS that the Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be GRANTED, to the extent it seeks remand; the Defendant's 16 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be DENIED; the final decision of the Commissioner be REVERSED; this matter be REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Proposed Findings and Recommendation; and this matter be DISMISSED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 7/20/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

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

THOMAS EDWARD GUY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-16746

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on May 22, 2014, 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 29, 2015, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and
Recommendation (Document 17) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant the Plaintiff=s
motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent it seeks remand (Document 12); deny the
Defendant=s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Document 16); reverse the final decision of the
Commission; remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with the Proposed Findings
and Recommendation; and dismiss this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the
Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by July 16, 2015.

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 12) be GRANTED to the extent it seeks remand; the Defendant=s motion for judgment
on the pleadings (Document 16) be DENIED; the final decision of the Commission be
REVERSED; this matter be REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Proposed
Findings and Recommendation; 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 Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

July 20, 2015