Stephens v. Colvin, No. 3:2014cv25232 - Document 13 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER accepting and incorporating the 12 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Eifert; denying Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting Defendant's 11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; and dismissing this action, with prejudice, from the docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 11/18/2015. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (jsa)

Download PDF
Stephens v. Colvin Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION DWAYNE FITZPATRICK STEPHENS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-25232 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 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). The Magistrate Judge has submitted findings of fact and recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff=s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 10), grant Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 11), and dismiss this action, with prejudice, from the docket of the Court. Neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge=s findings and recommendation. Accordingly, the Court accepts and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and DENIES Plaintiff=s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 10), GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 11), and DISMISSES this action, with prejudice, from the docket of the Court, consistent with the findings and recommendation. Dockets.Justia.com The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to forward copies of this written opinion and order to all counsel of record, and any unrepresented parties. ENTER: -2- November 18, 2015

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.