Keaton v. Kijakazi, No. 1:2020cv00855 - Document 19 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 18 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; granting plaintiff's 15 motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent it requests remand of defendant's decision; denying defen dant's 16 request to affirm her decision; reversing and remanding defendant's decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and dismissing this action with prejudice from the docket of the court. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 12/3/2021. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (arb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Keaton v. Kijakazi Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD LORI ANN KEATON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-00855 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her Proposed Findings and Recommendations (“PF&R”) on October 29, 2021, in which she recommended that the court grant plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 15) to the extent that it requests remand of defendant’s decision; deny defendant’s request to affirm her decision (ECF No. 16); reverse and remand defendant’s decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and dismiss this action from the docket of the court. (ECF No. 18.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days and three mailing days Dockets.Justia.com 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 motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED to the extent that it requests remand of defendant’s decision; 2. Defendant’s request to affirm her decision (ECF No. 16) is DENIED; 3. Defendant’s decision is REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and 4. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice from the docket of the court. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of December, 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.
