Close v. Berryhill, 1:17-01219. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. West Virginia
Number: infdco20180530h12
Visitors: 14
Filed: May 29, 2018
Latest Update: May 29, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DAVID A. FABER , Senior District Judge . By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her Proposed Findings and Recommendation ("PF&R") on February 26, 2018, in which she recommended that the district court deny plaintiff's motion to remand and motion for judg
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DAVID A. FABER , Senior District Judge . By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her Proposed Findings and Recommendation ("PF&R") on February 26, 2018, in which she recommended that the district court deny plaintiff's motion to remand and motion for judgm..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DAVID A. FABER, Senior District Judge.
By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her Proposed Findings and Recommendation ("PF&R") on February 26, 2018, in which she recommended that the district court deny plaintiff's motion to remand and motion for judgment on the pleadings; grant the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings; and affirm the Commissioner's decision. ECF No. 21.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to the magistrate judge's PF&R. The failure of any party to file such objections constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a de novo review by this court. See Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).
Neither party has filed any objections to the magistrate judge's PF&R within the required time period. Accordingly, the court adopts the factual and legal analysis contained within the PF&R as follows:
1. Plaintiff's motion to remand and motion for judgment on the pleadings are DENIED, (ECF Nos. 11, 12);
2. Defendant's request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner is GRANTED, (ECF No. 20);
3. The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; and
4. The Clerk is directed to remove this case from the court's active docket.
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record.
It is SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle