Wright v. Colvin, No. 2:2016cv02053 - Document 15 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER the Court GRANTS plaintiff's 12 request for judgment on the pleadings to the extent it seeks remand of the Commissioner's decision; DENIES defendant's 13 request to affirm the decision of the Commi ssioner; REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner; REMANDS this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; DISMISSES the 2 Complaint; and DIRECTS this case removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 1/5/2017. (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 JULIA ANNA WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-02053 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Julia Anna Wright’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 Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 4.) Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R on December 14, 2016, recommending that this Court reverse the final decision of the Commissioner, remand this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and dismiss this action from the Court’s docket. (ECF No. 14.) 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 3, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 12), to the extent it seeks remand of the Commissioner’s decision, DENIES Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner, (ECF No. 13), REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the PF&R, (ECF No. 14), 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: January 5, 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.