Guthrie v. Astrue, No. 2:2009cv00594 - Document 19 (S.D.W. Va. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the 18 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, REVERSING the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, REMANDING this case for further proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. section 405(g), and DISMISSING this case from the docket; a separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing the rulings contained herein. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/27/2010. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (mkw)

Download PDF
Guthrie v. Astrue Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION JEWELL FAYE GUTHRIE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-cv-00594 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Jewell Faye Guthrie’s Complaint for Review fo the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [Docket 2]. By Standing Order entered August 1, 2006, and filed in this case on May 29, 2009, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (PF&R). Magistrate Judge Stanley filed her PF&R [Docket 18] on May 27, 2010, recommending that this Court reverse the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and remand this case for further proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and dismiss this matter from the Court’s active docket. The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Defendant’s right to appeal this Court’s Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir.1989); Dockets.Justia.com United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on June 14, 2010. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Docket 18], REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, REMANDS this case for further proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and DISMISSES this case from the docket. A separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing the rulings contained herein. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: -2- August 27, 2010

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.