Hazelwood v. Astrue, No. 1:2008cv00279 - Document 14 (S.D.W. Va. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 13 the PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort; GRANTING 10 Plaintiff's MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings; DENYING 11 the Commissioner's MOTION for Judgmen t on the Pleadings; REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner and REMANDING this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The Clerk is directed to remove this matter from the court's active docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 8/26/2009. (cc: counsel of record) (arb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD DWIGHT K. HAZELWOOD, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08-0279 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order entered August 1, 2006, and filed in this case on April 28, 2008, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and recommendation. Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted his proposed findings and recommendation ( PF & R ) on July 31, 2009. (Doc. No. 13.) In that PF & R, the magistrate judge recommended that this court 1) grant plaintiff s motion for judgment on the pleadings, 2) deny the Commissioner s motion for judgment on the pleadings, 3) reverse the final decision of the Commissioner, and 4) remand this case to the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings. (Id. at 16-17.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted ten days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge VanDervort s PF & R. No party has filed objections within the requisite period, and the failure of any party to file such objections constitutes a waiver of such party s right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Having reviewed the PF & R filed by the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 13), the court adopts the findings and recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, the court hereby GRANTS plaintiff s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 10), DENIES the Commissioner s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 11), REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner, and REMANDS this case to the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings. By separate Judgment Order entered of even date, the court enters judgment in favor of plaintiff. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297-98 (1993) (holding that such a remand requires entry of final judgment). The Clerk is directed to remove this matter from the court s active docket and to forward a copy of this written Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record. It is SO ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2009. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior 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.
