Whittaker v. Kijakazi, No. 1:2021cv00363 - Document 21 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 20 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge as follows: Plaintiff's 15 request to reverse the Commissioner's decision is GRANTED; Defendant's 19 Request to Affirm the Commissioner's Decision is DENIED; The final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED; The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings as outlined in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation; and This Clerk is directed to remove this case from the court's active docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 9/21/2022. (cc: counsel of record) (mk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Whittaker v. Kijakazi Doc. 21 Case 1:21-cv-00363 Document 21 Filed 09/21/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 200 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD MARCELLA WHITTAKER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21-00363 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of findings and recommendation regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted to the court his Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on August 31, 2022, in which he recommended that the court grant the plaintiff’s request to reverse the Commissioner’s decision; deny defendant’s request to affirm the Commissioner’s decision; reverse the final decision of the Commissioner, remand the case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings as outlined in the PF&R; and dismiss this matter from the court’s docket. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), plaintiff was allotted fourteen days and three mailing days in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Tinsley's Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The failure of any party Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-00363 Document 21 Filed 09/21/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 201 to file such objections within the time allowed 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). Neither party filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations within the required time period. Accordingly, the court adopts the Findings and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Tinsley as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s request to reverse the Commissioner’s decision is GRANTED; 2. Defendant’s Request to Affirm the Commissioner’s Decision is DENIED; 3. The final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED; 4. The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings as outlined in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation; and 5. This Clerk is directed to remove this case from the court’s active docket. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st of September, 2022. 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.
