Filed: Feb. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 19, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS E. JOHNSTON , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Complaint seeking judicial review of the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin ("Commissioner"). (ECF No. 1.) On January 6, 2015, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation ("PF&R"). (ECF No. 3.) On January 5, 2016, the Clerk transferred the referral of this
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS E. JOHNSTON , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Complaint seeking judicial review of the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin ("Commissioner"). (ECF No. 1.) On January 6, 2015, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation ("PF&R"). (ECF No. 3.) On January 5, 2016, the Clerk transferred the referral of this ..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Complaint seeking judicial review of the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin ("Commissioner"). (ECF No. 1.) On January 6, 2015, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation ("PF&R"). (ECF No. 3.) On January 5, 2016, the Clerk transferred the referral of this action to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn. (ECF No. 15.) Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R, (ECF No. 16), on January 19, 2016, recommending that this Court reverse the final decision of the Commissioner and remand this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
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 a party'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 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 February 5, 2016. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 16), GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 9), DENIES the Commissioner's request for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 14), REMANDS this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings, and DISMISSES this action from the Court's docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
