Sergent v. Saul, No. 2:2019cv00416 - Document 11 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein; the Claimant's 8 request to reverse the Commissioner's decision is DENIED; the Commissioner's 9 request to affirm his decision is GRANTED; the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this action is DISMISSED from the court's docket. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 7/29/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kew)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sergent v. Saul Doc. 11 Case 2:19-cv-00416 Document 11 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1905 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION JESSICA LEE SERGENT Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00416 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 of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On April 9, 2020, Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted his Proposed Findings & Recommendations (“PF&R”), [ECF No. 10], and recommended that the court DENY Claimant’s request to reverse the Commissioner’s decision, [ECF No. 8], GRANT the Commissioner’s request to affirm his decision, [ECF No. 9], AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner, and DISMISS this action from the court’s docket. Neither party timely filed objections to the PF&R nor sought an extension of time. A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, required to review, under a de Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-00416 Document 11 Filed 07/28/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1906 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). Because the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court adopts and incorporates herein the PF&R and orders judgment consistent therewith. The court DENIES Claimant’s request to reverse the Commissioner’s decision, [ECF No. 8], GRANTS the Commissioner’s request to affirm his decision, [ECF No. 9], 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 and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 July 28, 2020
]]>
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.
