Howerton v. Colvin, No. 5:2016cv01026 - Document 16 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; GRANTS the Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to the extent that it seeks remand of the Commissioner' s decision; DENIES Defendant's 13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) and DISMISSES the case with prejudice and REMOVES it from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 1/4/2017. (cc: Magistrate Judge Eifert; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Download PDF
Howerton v. Colvin Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION CONNIE SUE HOWERTON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-01026 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on January 29, 2016, 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 December 12, 2016, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 15) wherein it is recommended that this Court: grant the Plaintiff=s motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent that it seeks remand of the Commissioner’s decision; deny the Defendant=s motion for judgment on the pleadings; reverse the decision of the Commissioner; remand the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and dismiss the case with prejudice and remove the same from the Court’s docket. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by December 30, 2016, 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 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. The Court: GRANTS the Plaintiff=s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Document 12) to the extent that it seeks remand of the Commissioner’s decision; DENIES the Defendant=s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Document 13); REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner; REMANDS the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and DISMISSES the case with prejudice and REMOVES the same 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 January 4, 2017

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.