Filed: Sep. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS E. JOHNSTON , District Judge . Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings ("Plaintiff's Motion"), (ECF No. 11), and Defendant's Brief in Support of Defendant's Decision ("Defendant's Motion"), (ECF No. 12). By Standing Order entered on May 7, 2014 and filed in this case on May 22, 2014, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and recomme
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS E. JOHNSTON , District Judge . Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings ("Plaintiff's Motion"), (ECF No. 11), and Defendant's Brief in Support of Defendant's Decision ("Defendant's Motion"), (ECF No. 12). By Standing Order entered on May 7, 2014 and filed in this case on May 22, 2014, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and recommen..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, District Judge.
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings ("Plaintiff's Motion"), (ECF No. 11), and Defendant's Brief in Support of Defendant's Decision ("Defendant's Motion"), (ECF No. 12). By Standing Order entered on May 7, 2014 and filed in this case on May 22, 2014, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and recommendations for disposition. (ECF No. 4.) Magistrate Judge VanDervort filed his PF&R on August 31, 2015, in which he recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion, grant Defendant's Motion, affirm the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner"), and dismiss this matter from the Court's docket. (ECF No. 13.)
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 Plaintiff'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 by September 17, 2015. (See ECF No. 13 at 28.) To date, the parties have not filed any objections.
Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 13), GRANTS Defendant's Motion, (ECF No. 12), DENIES Plaintiff's Motion, (ECF No. 11), AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, DISMISSES this case, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter 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.
