Brown v. Colvin

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, reversing the final decision of the Commissioner, remanding this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings, dismissing the 2 Complaint, and directing the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/19/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

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

TASHA BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-cv-10572

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Tasha Brown’s Complaint seeking review of the
decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (ECF 2). By Standing Order entered
April 8,2013, and filed in this case on May 10, 2013, this action was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation
(“PF&R”). (ECF 4.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted a PF&R on July 31, 2014 (ECF 15),
recommending that this Court reverse the final decision of the Commissioner, remand this case for
further proceedings, 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 July 30, 2014, PF&R in
this case were due on August 18, 2014. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 15], REVERSES the final decision of
the Commissioner, REMANDS this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings,
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

August 19, 2014