Starcher v. Astrue, No. 6:2009cv00580 - Document 16 (S.D.W. Va. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, affirming the final decision of the Commissioner, dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint, and dismissing this case from the docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/25/2010. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (jkk)

Download PDF
Starcher v. Astrue Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA PARKERSBURG DIVISION TAMI LAYNE STARCHER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:09-cv-00580 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Tami Layne Starcher’s Complaint [Docket 2]. By Standing Order entered August 1, 2006, and filed in this case on May 26, 2009, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Mary E. Stanley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (PF&R). Magistrate Judge Stanley filed her PF&R [Docket 15] on May 25, 2010, recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and remove this matter from the Court’s docket. 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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal this Court’s Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir.1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court Dockets.Justia.com to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on June 11, 2010. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Docket 15], AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint [Docket 2], and DISMISSES this case from the docket. A separate Judgment Order will enter this day implementing the rulings contained herein. IT IS SO ORDERED. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: -2- August 25, 2010

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.