Meadows v. Astrue, No. 2:2010cv00869 - Document 14 (S.D.W. Va. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND REMAND ORDER adopting the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, reversing the final decision of the Commissioner, remanding this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings, and dismissing this case from the docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 12/20/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ICEY MEADOWS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-cv-00869 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND REMAND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff s Complaint [Docket 2]. By Standing Order entered August 1, 2006, and filed in this case on June 28, 2010, 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 13] on June 21, 2011, recommending that this Court reverse the final decision of the Commissioner, remand for further proceedings, and dismiss this case from the Court s 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 Petitioner s right to appeal this Court s Order. 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir.1989); 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 July 8, 2011. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Docket 13], REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings, and DISMISSES this case from the docket. 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 December 20, 2011
]]>
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.
