Dyer v. Colvin, No. 2:2014cv14052 - Document 14 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge, reversing the final decision of the Commissioner, remanding this case for further proceedings pursuant to the fourth and sixth sentences of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and directing the Clerk to remove this case from the Courts docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/14/2015. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ALICE LOUISE DYER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-14052 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking review of the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin (“Commissioner”) [ECF 2]. On April 15, 2014, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R [ECF 13] on July 24, 2015, recommending that this Court reverse the final decision of the Commissioner and remand this case for further proceedings. 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 Plaintiff’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); 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 were due on August 10, 2015. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 13], REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS this case for further proceedings pursuant to the fourth and sixth sentences of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the Court’s 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: August 14, 2015

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.