Thaxton v. Colvin, No. 2:2016cv00281 - Document 15 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; denying the plaintiff's 10 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting the defendant's 13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadi ngs; affirming the final decision of the Commissioner; dismissing the 2 complaint; and directing this case removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 1/23/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION BENJAMIN ALLEN THAXTON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-00281 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Benjamin Allen Thaxton’s Complaint seeking review of the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin (“Commissioner”) (ECF No. 2). By Standing Order entered January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on January 14, 2016, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R (ECF No. 14) on January 3, 2017, recommending that this Court affirm the final decision of the Commissioner and dismiss this matter 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. § 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 originally due on January 20, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R (ECF No. 14), DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 10), GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 13), AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, DISMISSES the Complaint (ECF No. 2), and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the Court’s 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 January 23, 2017
]]>
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.
