Gaynor v. Astrue, No. 2:2007cv00674 - Document 23 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER vacating the referral to Magistrate Judge Stanley; granting Defendant's 22 MOTION to Remand To Commissioner of Social Security; the final decision of the Commissioner is reversed or vacated; the case is remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings as outlined in the motion to remand; directing the Clerk to remove this case from the court's active docket. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 8/3/2012. (cc: attys) (tmh)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD HARRY E. GAYNOR, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-0674 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley for submission of findings and recommendation regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Before Magistrate Judge Stanley could submit her Findings and Recommendation to the court, defendant filed an uncontested motion to remand this case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings as outlined in defendant s unopposed motion to remand. Given that defendant s motion to remand is uncontested, the court hereby VACATES the referral to Magistrate Judge Stanley and orders as follows: 1. Defendant s Motion to Remand is GRANTED; 2. The final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED or VACATED; 3. The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings as outlined in the motion to remand; and 4. This Clerk is directed to remove this case from the court s active docket. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd of August, 2012. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.