Elkins v. Saul, No. 2:2020cv00410 - Document 18 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER accepting and incorporating the 17 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; granting Claimant's 15 REQUEST to reverse the Commissioner's decision; denying Commissioner's 16 REQUEST to affirm his decision; remanding this action for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 5/6/2021. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (tmr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Elkins v. Saul Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION PAUL DAVID ELKINS Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00410 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 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. On April 16, 2021, Judge Tinsley submitted his Proposed Findings & Recommendation [ECF No. 17] (“PF&R”). Judge Tinsley recommends that the court GRANT Claimant’s request to reverse the Commissioner’s decision [ECF No. 15]; DENY the Commissioner’s request to affirm his decision [ECF No. 16]; REVERSE the final decision of the Commissioner; and REMAND this action for further proceedings. 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 novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge Dockets.Justia.com 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 accepts and incorporates herein the PF&R and orders judgment consistent therewith. The court GRANTS Claimant’s request to reverse the Commissioner’s decision [ECF No. 15]; DENIES the Commissioner’s request to affirm his decision [ECF No. 16]; REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner; and REMANDS this action for further proceedings. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 May 6, 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.
