Buskirk v. Colvin

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; denying plaintiff's 11 request for judgment on the pleadings; affirming the final decision of the Commissioner; dismissing the 2 Complaint; and directing this case removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 2/19/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
DANA EUGENE BUSKIRK,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-cv-05800

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Dana Eugene Buskirk’s Complaint seeking review of the
decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin (“Commissioner”)
[ECF 2]. By Standing Order entered September 2, 2010, and filed in this case on March 22, 2013,
this action was referred to former United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley for submission
of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”), and the case was later transferred to
United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley. Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R
[ECF 14] on January 30 2014, recommending that this Court affirm the final decision of the
Commissioner and dismiss this matter from the Court’s docket.
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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file
timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal this
Court’s Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir.

1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not
conduct a de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not
direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.”
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections to the PF&R were originally due
on February 18, 2014. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 12], DENIES Plaintiff’s request for
judgment on the pleadings (ECF 11), AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner,
DISMISSES the Complaint [ECF 2], and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the
Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

February 19, 2014