Howerton v. Saul, No. 5:2018cv01462 - Document 17 (S.D.W. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the 16 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge; GRANTING the Plaintiff's 11 Request for Judgment on the Pleadings to the extent that it seeks remand; DENYING the Defendant's [ 12] Request to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner; REVERSING the final decision of the Commissioner; REMANDING this action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) and DISMISSING this action with prejudice from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 8/23/2019. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party; Magistrate Judge Eifert) (btm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Howerton v. Saul Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION CONNIE SUE HOWERTON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-01462 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Standing Order (Document 3) entered on November 26, 2018, 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 July 25, 2019, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 16) wherein it is recommended that this Court: grant the Plaintiff’s request for judgment on the pleadings to the extent that it seeks remand (Document 11); deny the Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner (Document 12); reverse the final decision of the Commissioner; remand this action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and dismiss this action with prejudice from the Court’s docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by August 12, 2019. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 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. The Court ORDERS that: the Plaintiff’s request for judgment on the pleadings to the extent that it seeks remand (Document 11) be GRANTED; the Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner (Document 12) be DENIED; the final decision of the Commissioner be REVERSED; this action be REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and this action be DISMISSED with prejudice 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 August 23, 2019
]]>
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.
