Bowman v. Colvin, No. 2:2013cv14114 - Document 16 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; denying plaintiff's 12 motion for judgment on the pleadings; granting the Commissioner's 13 motion for judgment on the pleadings; dismissing with prejudice the 2 complaint; and directing this case removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/25/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION REBECCA E. BOWMAN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-14114 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Rebecca Eileen Bowman 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 June 12, 2013, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation ( PF&R ). Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R [ECF 15] on August 5, 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. ยง 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 August 22, 2014. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 15], DENIES Plaintiff s motion for judgment on the pleadings [ECF 12], GRANTS the Commissioner s motion for judgment on the pleadings [ECF 13], DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE 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: August 25, 2014
]]>
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.
