From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howerton v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION
Aug 23, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-01462 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 23, 2019)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-01462

08-23-2019

CONNIE SUE HOWERTON, Plaintiff, v. 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.

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, 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 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: August 23, 2019

/s/_________

IRENE C. BERGER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA


Summaries of

Howerton v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION
Aug 23, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-01462 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 23, 2019)
Case details for

Howerton v. Saul

Case Details

Full title:CONNIE SUE HOWERTON, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION

Date published: Aug 23, 2019

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-01462 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 23, 2019)