CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20CV53
( ) ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 23] , DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 14], GRANTING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 17], AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
On March 25, 2020, the plaintiff, Gwendolyn Miranda Moats ("Moats"), filed a complaint against the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") (Dkt. No. 1). Moats sought review of the Commissioner's final decision denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and L.R. Civ. P. 9.02 regarding Social Security Cases, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble for initial review.
In a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") entered on February 4, 2021, Magistrate Judge Trumble recommended that the Court deny Moats's motion for summary judgment and grant the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 23). Following a careful review of the record, he concluded that the Administrative Law Judge's decision to deny benefits contained no legal error and was supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 17.
The R&R informed the parties of their right to file "written objections identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendations to which objection is made, and the basis for such objection." Id. It further warned that failure to do so would result in waiver of the right to appeal. Id. Despite receipt of the R&R, neither party filed objections to the recommendation.
"The Court will review de novo any portions of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is made...." Dellacirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F. Supp. 2d 600, 603-04 (N.D.W. Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)). The Court will uphold those portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been made unless they are "clearly erroneous." See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Failure to file specific objections waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984); see also Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
Having received no objections to the R&R, the Court has no duty to conduct a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Trumble's findings. Following a review of the R&R and the record for clear error, the Court:
1) ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 23);
2) DENIES Moats's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 14);
3) GRANTS the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 17); and
4) DISMISSES this civil action WITH PREJUDICE and DIRECTS that it be stricken from the Court's active docket.
It is so ORDERED.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter a separate judgment order and to transmit copies of both orders to counsel of record. DATED: February 23, 2021.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE