Filed: Aug. 30, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 30, 2013
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff Ronnie Mitchell Hunt's Complaint seeking review of the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security 1 ("Commissioner") [ECF 2]. By Standing Order entered September 2, 2010, and filed in this case on April 19, 2012, this action was referred to former United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation ("PF&R"). On April 8, 2013, this actio
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff Ronnie Mitchell Hunt's Complaint seeking review of the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security 1 ("Commissioner") [ECF 2]. By Standing Order entered September 2, 2010, and filed in this case on April 19, 2012, this action was referred to former United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation ("PF&R"). On April 8, 2013, this action..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Ronnie Mitchell Hunt's Complaint seeking review of the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security1 ("Commissioner") [ECF 2]. By Standing Order entered September 2, 2010, and filed in this case on April 19, 2012, this action was referred to former United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation ("PF&R"). On April 8, 2013, this action, following Magistrate Judge Stanley's retirement, was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley. (ECF 12.) On August 12, 2013 Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R [ECF 13] recommending that this Court reverse the final decision of the Commissioner, remand this case for further proceedings affirm the final decision of the Commissioner, dismiss 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 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 were due on August 29, 2013. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 13], REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS this case to the Commissioner, DISMISSES the Complaint [ECF 2], and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy oof this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
