Filed: Nov. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 24, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff Amanda Shumaker's Complaint seeking review of the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin ("Commissioner") [ECF 2]. By Standing Order entered on April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on September 24, 2013, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation ("PF&R"). Magistrate Judge Eif
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff Amanda Shumaker's Complaint seeking review of the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin ("Commissioner") [ECF 2]. By Standing Order entered on April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on September 24, 2013, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation ("PF&R"). Magistrate Judge Eife..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Amanda Shumaker's Complaint seeking review of the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin ("Commissioner") [ECF 2]. By Standing Order entered on April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on September 24, 2013, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation ("PF&R"). Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R [ECF 16] on September 23, 2014, recommending that this Court affirm the final decision of the Commissioner and 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 October 10, 2014. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 16], DENIES Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [ECF 12], GRANTS Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleading [ECF 15], AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE 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 of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
