England v. Colvin, No. 5:2012cv04124 - Document 14 (S.D.W. Va. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff's 10 Motion for J udgment on the Pleadings be GRANTED, Defendant's 11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in DENIED, the final decision of the Commissioner be REVERSED; this matter be REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Proposed Findings and Recommendation pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g); and this matter be DISMISSED from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 8/27/2013. (cc: USMJ VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION SHERRY LYNN ENGLAND, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-cv-04124 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on August 7, 2012, 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). On August 9, 2013, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 13) wherein it is recommended that this Court grant the Plaintiff=s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Document 10); deny the Defendant=s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Document 11); reverse the final decision of the Commissioner; remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with the Proposed Findings and Recommendation pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and dismiss the matter from the Court s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by August 26, 2013. 1 Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. 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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); see also Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983) (holding that districts courts may adopt proposed findings and recommendations without explanation in the absence of objections). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The Court ORDERS that the Plaintiff=s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Document 10) be GRANTED; the Defendant=s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Document 11) be DENIED; the final decision of the Commissioner be REVERSED; this matter be REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Proposed Findings and Recommendation pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and this matter be DISMISSED from the Court s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Magistrate Judge VanDervort, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 August 27, 2013

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.