Arbaugh v. Berryhill, No. 2:2017cv01878 - Document 14 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER the Court ADOPTS the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; DENIES Plaintiff's 10 request for judgment on the pleadings; GRANTS Defendant's 11 request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner; AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner; and DISMISSES this matter from this Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 10/12/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mks)
Download PDF
Arbaugh v. Berryhill Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION LAURIE JO ARBAUGH, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-01878 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Laurie Jo Arbaugh’s (“Claimant”) Complaint seeking review of the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Nancy A. Berryhill, denying the Claimant’s application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. By Standing Order entered March 14, 2017, (ECF No. 3), this case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn to consider the pleadings and evidence, and to submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations (PF&R) for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on August 31, 2017, recommending that this Court deny Claimant’s request for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 10), and grant Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner, (ECF No. 11). 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 September 18, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, DENIES Plaintiff’s request for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 10), GRANTS Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner, (ECF No. 11), AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, and DISMISSES this matter from this 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: October 12, 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.