Berry v. Colvin, No. 5:2016cv01500 - Document 12 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 11 Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The Court ORDERS that: the Plaintiffs 9 request for ju dgment on the pleadings be GRANTED to the extent that it seeks remand of the Commissioners decision; the Defendants 10 request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner be DENIED; the final decision of the Commissioner be REVERSED; this matter be REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings consistent with the Proposed Findings and Recommendation; and this matter be DISMISSED with prejudice from the Courts docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 01/12/2017. (cc: USMJ Eifert; attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)

Download PDF
Berry v. Colvin Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION MARY SELENA BERRY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-01500 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on February 12, 2016, this action was referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, 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 December 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 11) wherein it is recommended that this Court: grant the Plaintiff’s request for judgment on the pleadings to the extent that it seeks remand of the Commissioner’s decision; deny the Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner; reverse the final decision of the Commissioner; remand this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings consistent with the Proposed Findings and Recommendation; and dismiss this matter with prejudice from the Court’s docket. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by January 9, 2017, and none were filed by either party. 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 request for judgment on the pleadings (Document 9) be GRANTED to the extent that it seeks remand of the Commissioner’s decision; the Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner (Document 10) be DENIED; the final decision of the Commissioner be REVERSED; this matter be REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings consistent with the Proposed Findings and Recommendation; and this matter be DISMISSED with prejudice from the Court’s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Magistrate Judge Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 January 12, 2017

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.