McNeely v. Saul, No. 2:2020cv00158 - Document 18 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER adopting the 17 Proposed Findings and Recommendations. Granting plaintiff's 11 request for judgment on the pleadings to the extent it requests remand of the Commissioner's decision; denies defendant's 14 request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner. Reverses the final decision of the Commissioner and remands this matter and dismisses this action from the docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 9/22/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (lca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
McNeely v. Saul Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION LIZZIE ARIZONA MCNEELY Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00158 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ORDER This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On September 4, 2020, Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted her Proposed Findings & Recommendations [ECF No. 17] (“PF&R”) and recommended that the court GRANT Plaintiff’s request for judgment on the pleadings, [ECF No. 11], to the extent that it requests remand of the Commissioner’s decision; DENY Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner, [ECF No. 14]; REVERSE the final decision of the Commissioner; REMAND this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the PF&R; and DISMISS this action from the docket of the Court. Because the PF&R was served electronically on all parties, objections to the PF&R were due by September 18, 2020. 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.” Dockets.Justia.com 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, 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). 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 GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for judgment on the pleadings, [ECF No. 11], to the extent that it requests remand of the Commissioner’s decision; DENIES Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner, [ECF No. 14]; 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; and DISMISSES this action from the docket of the Court. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 September 22, 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.
