Pennington v. Saul, No. 2:2020cv00452 - Document 15 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; denying Plaintiff's 12 Brief/Request for judgment on the pleadings; granting Defendant's 13 Brief/Request for judgment on the pleadings; directing that th e final decision of the Commissioner be affirmed and that this action be dismissed with prejudice and removed from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 6/9/2021. (cc: certified copy of this Memorandum Opinion andOrder to Magistrate Judge Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party) (tmr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pennington v. Saul Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ROY EDWIN PENNINGTON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00452 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on July 1, 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 May 25, 2021, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 14) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff’s brief/request in support of judgment on the pleadings (Document 12), grant the Defendant’s brief/request in support of judgment on the pleadings (Document 13), affirm the final decision of the Commissioner, and dismiss this action with prejudice from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by June 8, 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 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 brief/request for judgment on the pleadings (Document 12) be DENIED and that the Defendant’s brief/request for judgment on the pleadings (Document 13) be GRANTED. The Court further ORDERS that the final decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED and that this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and REMOVED 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: 2 June 9, 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.
