Foster v. Saul, No. 2:2019cv00017 - Document 18 (S.D.W. Va. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 17 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, denies 14 Brief in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings and grants the Commissioner's 15 Brief in Support of Defendant's Decision. Directing that this action is dismissed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 11/25/2019. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party, Magistrate Judge) (lca)

Download PDF
Foster v. Saul Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION KIMBERLY DAWN FOSTER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00017 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On October 16, 2019, Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted the Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation [ECF No. 17] (“PF&R”), recommending the Court DENY Claimant’s request to reverse the Commissioner’s decision [ECF No. 14], GRANT the Commissioner’s request to affirm his decision [ECF No. 15], AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner, and DISMISS this action from the Court’s docket. To date, no objections to Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s PF&R have been filed, and the time period for the filing of objections has passed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and INCORPORATES herein the PF&R. For the reasons stated, the Court DENIES Claimant’s request to reverse the Dockets.Justia.com Commissioner’s decision [ECF No. 14], GRANTS the Commissioner’s request to affirm his decision [ECF No. 15], AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, and DISMISSES this action from the Court’s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record, any unrepresented party, and the Magistrate Judge. ENTER: November 25, 2019

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.