Toler v. Colvin

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendation and ORDERS that the Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Jud gment on the Pleadings be DENIED and that the Defendant's 10 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 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. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 02/11/2016. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)

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

KATHY F. TOLER,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-01794

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Document 2) seeking review of the
final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying the Plaintiff’s application for Social
Security disability. Subsequently filed were the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the
pleadings (Documents 11 and 12).
By Orders entered on February 17, 2015, and January 5, 2016 (Documents 4 and 14), this
action was referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, 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 January 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed
Findings and Recommendation (Document 15) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny
the Plaintiff=s motion for judgment on the pleadings, grant the Defendant=s motion for judgment
on the pleadings, affirm the final decision of the Commissioner, and dismiss this action from the
1

Court=s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation
were due by February 5, 2016.
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, 14950 (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, and ORDERS that the Plaintiff=s motion for judgment on the pleadings
(Document 11) be DENIED and that the Defendant=s motion for judgment on the pleadings
(Document 12) 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.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

February 11, 2016