Parsons v. Colvin, No. 2:2014cv00032 - Document 17 (W.D. Va. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting the Commissioner's objections to the recommendation of the magistrate judge that the case be remanded to the Commission for further development; granting 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; the Report and Recommendations 15 of the magistrate judge is not accepted. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 3/28/2016. (lml)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Parsons v. Colvin Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA BIG STONE GAP DIVISION ANITA J. PARSONS, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:14CV00032 OPINION AND ORDER By: James P. Jones United States District Judge Robert B. Hines, II, Jonesville, Virginia, for Plaintiff; Nora Koch, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Region III, Evelyn Rose Marie Protano, Assistant Regional Counsel, James McTigue, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Defendant. The Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) has filed timely objections to the Report filed February 24, 2016, setting forth the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, in which it is recommended that the case be remanded to the Commissioner for further development. The plaintiff has not filed a timely response to the objections, nor has she objected herself to the Report. Based upon my de novo review, and for the reasons stated by the Commissioner in her objections (ECF No. 16), I find that the Commissioner’s Dockets.Justia.com objections are well founded and should be granted. Because the magistrate judge’s rulings that were not objected to otherwise support the factual findings of the administrative law judge that the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, I find it appropriate to affirm the Commissioner’s decision denying disability insurance benefits. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that (1) the Commissioner’s objections to the recommendation of the magistrate judge that the case be remanded to the Commission for further development are GRANTED; (2) the recommendation of the magistrate judge that the case be remanded to the Commission for further development is NOT ACCEPTED; (2) the Motion for Summary Judgment by the Commissioner is GRANTED; and (3) the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. A separate final Judgment will be entered herewith. ENTER: March 28, 2016 /s/ James P. Jones United States District Judge -2-
]]>
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.
