Salters v. Astrue, No. 5:2010cv01234 - Document 9 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendation and ORDERS that the Commissioner's final decision be AFFIRMED and this action be DISMISSED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 2/21/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION RANDALL J. SALTERS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-cv-01234 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed Plaintiff s Complaint (Document 1), which seeks review of the Commissioner of Social Security s ( Commissioner ) final decision denying the Plaintiff s application for Disability Insurance Benefits ( DIB ), under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on October 20, 2010, this action was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Neither party filed supportive briefs in this case. On January 31, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF&R ) (Document 8), wherein it is recommended 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). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on February 17, 2012. To date, no party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's PF&R. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 8), and ORDERS that the Commissioner s final decision be AFFIRMED and this action be DISMISSED from the Court s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 February 21, 2012
]]>
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.
