Walker v. Saul, No. 2:2020cv00196 - Document 18 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting and incorporating 17 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; directing that the Plaintiff's 15 BRIEF/MOTION for Judgment on the pleadings; granting Defendant's 16 BRIEF/MOTION for Judgment on the pleadings; directing that the final decision of the Commissioner be affirmed and that this action be dismissed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 2/1/2021. (cc: Magistrate Judge Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.) (tmr).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Walker v. Saul Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ROBERT KENNETH WALKER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00196 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on March 20, 2020, this action was referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge, 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 January 6, 2021, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 17) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s brief/motion for judgment on the pleadings, grant the Defendant’s brief/motion for judgment on the pleadings, affirm the final decision of the Commissioner, and dismiss this action from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by January 20, 2021, and none were filed by either party. 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 Dockets.Justia.com to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); see also Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983) (holding that districts courts may adopt proposed findings and recommendations without explanation in the absence of objections). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Plaintiff’s brief/motion for judgment on the pleadings (Document 15) be DENIED and that the Defendant’s brief/motion for judgment on the pleadings (Document 16) be GRANTED. The Court further ORDERS that the final decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED and that this action be DISMISSED from the Court’s docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Magistrate Judge Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: February 1, 2021
]]>
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.
