Elkins v. Colvin, No. 2:2015cv04386 - Document 18 (S.D.W. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 17 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; granting the Commissioner's 13 Motion to remand; reversing the final decision of the Commissioner; remanding this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings; and dismissing this action from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 7/28/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ERIC ELKINS et al., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-04386 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking judicial review of the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin (“Commissioner”). (ECF No. 2.) On April 13, 2015, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 4.) On September 2, 2015, the Commissioner filed an unopposed motion to remand this case for further administrative action. (ECF No. 13.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on June 27, 2016, recommending that this Court grant the Commissioner’s unopposed motion, reverse the final decision of the Commissioner, and remand this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 17.) 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 a party’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 in this case were due on July 14, 2016. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 17), GRANTS the Commissioner’s motion to remand, (ECF No. 13), REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings, and DISMISSES this action 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 July 28, 2016
]]>
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.
