From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clay v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Jan 9, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08cv25 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 9, 2009)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08cv25.

January 9, 2009


ORDER


The above-styled matter is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert. Magistrate Judge Seibert filed his Report and Recommendation on October 24, 2008, wherein the parties were directed, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), to file with the Clerk of Court any written objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. No objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court will review the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation for clear error.

The failure of a party to object to a Report and Recommendation waives the party's right to appeal from a judgment of this Court based thereon and, additionally, relieves the Court of any obligation to conduct a de novo review of the issues presented. See Wells v. Shriners Hospital, 109 F.3d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1997); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-153 (1985).

Upon examination of the report from the Magistrate Judge, it appears to the Court that the issues raised in the cross motions for summary judgment were thoroughly considered by Magistrate Judge Seibert in his Report and Recommendation. The Court, reviewing all matters now before it for clear error, is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation accurately reflects the law applicable to the facts and circumstances before the Court in this action. Therefore, it is

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Seibert's Report and Recommendation be, and hereby is, accepted in whole and that this civil action be disposed of in accordance with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,

1. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED;

2. The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED;

3. The decision for the Defendant is AFFIRMED; and

4. This civil action is DISMISSED and RETIRED from the docket of this Court.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a separate judgment order and to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.


Summaries of

Clay v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Jan 9, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08cv25 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 9, 2009)
Case details for

Clay v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:BETTY S. CLAY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia

Date published: Jan 9, 2009

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08cv25 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 9, 2009)

Citing Cases

Rosenthal v. Colvin

However, "the [Code of Federal R]egulations only requires the [ALJ] to recontact a treating physician when…

Odom v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

It is true, as the government points out, that courts have found that an internal inconsistency in an opinion…