Patton v. Berryhill, No. 1:2015cv15984 - Document 9 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The current Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Nancy A. Berryhill, is substituted for former Acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin as defendant in this action. The court ADOPTS the 8 Proposed Fi ndings and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Eifert; GRANTS defendant's 5 MOTION to Dismiss; the complaint is DISMISSED, with prejudice; and the Clerk is directed to remove this matter from the court's docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 8/16/2017. (cc: counsel of record) (arb)

Download PDF
Patton v. Berryhill Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD ETTA JANE PATTON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-15984 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.1 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and recommendations (“PF&R”) for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). See Doc. No. 3. Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her PF&R on May 24, 2017, in which she recommended that the court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; that the court dismiss the complaint, with prejudice; and that the court remove this matter from the court’s docket. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted seventeen days in which to file any objections to the 1 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the current Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Nancy A. Berryhill, is substituted for former Acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin as Defendant in this action. Dockets.Justia.com Magistrate Judge’s PF&R. The failure of any party to file such objections within the time allotted constitutes a waiver of such party’s right to a de novo review by this court. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989). See Snyder v. Neither party filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s PF&R within the required time period. Accordingly, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Eifert’s PF&R as follows: 1) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 2) The complaint is DISMISSED, with prejudice; and 3) The Clerk is directed to remove this matter from the docket of the court. The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record. It is SO ORDERED this 16th day of August, 2017. 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.