Braxton v. Berryhill, No. 2:2016cv01899 - Document 16 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; granting plaintiff's 12 Memorandum of Law in Support of plaintiff's complaint for Review of the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to the extent it seeks remand of the Commissioner's decision; reversing the final decision of the Commissioner; remanding this action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Proposed Findings and Recommendation; dismissing the 2 complaint; and directing this case removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 1/30/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION WENDELL DWAYNE BRAXTON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-01899 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Wendell Dwayne Braxton’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 March 4, 2016, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R (ECF No. 15) on January 6, 2017, recommending that this Court REVERSE 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 due on January 23, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R (ECF No. 15), GRANTS Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Complaint for Review of the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (ECF No. 12) to the extent it seeks remand of the Commissioner’s decision, REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS this action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the PF&R, 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 30, 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.