Benson v. Kijakazi, No. 1:2020cv00411 - Document 24 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 23 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; denying plaintiff's 19 request for judgment on the pleadings; granting defendant's 22 request to affirm the decision below; affirming defendant's final decision and dismissing the case from the court's docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 11/3/2021. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (arb)

Download PDF
Benson v. Kijakazi Doc. 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD RAY BENSON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-00411 Kilolo Kijakazi, 1 Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted to the court his Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on March 18, 2021, in which he recommended that the court deny plaintiff’s request for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 19), grant defendant’s request to affirm the decision (ECF No. 22), affirm the final decision of the Commissioner, and dismiss this matter from the Court’s docket. (ECF No. 23.) 1 Kilolo Kijakazi became the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on July 9, 2021. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Kijakazi was substituted for Andrew Saul as the defendant in this action. Dockets.Justia.com In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days and three mailing days in which to file objections to the PF&R. The failure of any party to file such objections within the time allowed constitutes a waiver of such party’s right to a de novo review by this court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1365-66 (4th Cir. 1989); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” (emphasis added)). Neither party filed objections to the PF&R within the required time period. Accordingly, the court adopts the PF&R as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s request for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 19) is DENIED; 2. Defendant’s request to affirm the decision below (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED; 3. Defendant’s final decision is AFFIRMED; and 4. The case is DISMISSED from the court’s docket. 2 The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2021. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 3

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.