Cline et al v. Colvin

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 17 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, denying Plaintiff's 14 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, granting Defendant's 15 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, affirming the final decision of the Commissioner, and dismissing this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 3/12/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

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

VICTORIA CLINE, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

2:13-cv-23194

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking review of the decision of the Acting
Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin (“Commissioner”) [ECF 2]. By Standing
Order entered April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on September 24, 2013, this action was
referred to United States Magistrate R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings
and a recommendation (“PF&R”).

Magistrate Judge VanDervort filed his PF&R [ECF 17] on

February 19, 2015, 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).

the PF&R were due on March 9, 2015.

Objections to

To date, no objections have been filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 17], DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings [ECF 14], GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings [ECF 15], AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, and DISMISSES this
matter from the Court’s docket.

A separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing

the rulings contained herein.
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:

March 12, 2015