Jones v. Saul, No. 2:2020cv00437 - Document 17 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 16 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, denying Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, granting Defendant's 15 Brief in Support of Defendant's Decision, affirming the final decision of the Commissioner, and dismissing this action from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 3/16/2021. (cc: Judge, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, counsel of record, any unrepresented party) (msa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jones v. Saul Doc. 17 Case 2:20-cv-00437 Document 17 Filed 03/16/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 768 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION JOHNNIE L. JONES, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00437 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on June 30, 2020, this action was referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, 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 February 23, 2021, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 16) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Document 13), grant the Defendant’s Brief in Support of Defendant’s Decision (Document 15), 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 March 9, 2021. Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00437 Document 17 Filed 03/16/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 769 factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 14950 (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 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Document 13) be DENIED, the Defendant’s Brief in Support of Defendant’s Decision (Document 15) be GRANTED, the final decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED, and 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 Aboulhosn, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 March 16, 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.
