From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hensley v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION
Feb 10, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-cv-27810 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 10, 2015)

Summary

finding that the claimant's restriction to standing and walking no more than two hours in an eight-hour workday did not conflict with a limited range of light work where the VE testified to jobs at the light exertional level

Summary of this case from Lynch v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-cv-27810

02-10-2015

WILLIAM M. HENSLEY, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

By Standing Order (Document 4) entered on November 7, 2013, this action was referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On January 20, 2015, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 18) wherein it is recommended that this Court deny the Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, grant the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, affirm the final decision of the Commissioner, and dismiss this action from the Court's docket. Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommendation were due by February 6, 2015.

Neither party has timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommendation. 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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); see also Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983) (holding that districts courts may adopt proposed findings and recommendations without explanation in the absence of objections).

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Document 14) be DENIED and that the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Document 15) be GRANTED. The Court further ORDERS that the final decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED and that this action be DISMISSED from the Court's docket.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Magistrate Judge Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: February 10, 2015

/s/_________

IRENE C. BERGER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA


Summaries of

Hensley v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION
Feb 10, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-cv-27810 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 10, 2015)

finding that the claimant's restriction to standing and walking no more than two hours in an eight-hour workday did not conflict with a limited range of light work where the VE testified to jobs at the light exertional level

Summary of this case from Lynch v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

finding that the claimant's restriction to standing and walking no more than two hours in an eight-hour workday did not conflict with a limited range of light work where vocational expert testified to jobs at the light exertional level

Summary of this case from Freeman v. Colvin

explaining that a two-hour standing/walking restriction falls within the definition of "a reduced range of light work" and does not compel the conclusion that the claimant could "only perform sedentary work" (collecting cases holding the same)

Summary of this case from Kevin D. v. Berryhill
Case details for

Hensley v. Colvin

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM M. HENSLEY, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION

Date published: Feb 10, 2015

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-cv-27810 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 10, 2015)

Citing Cases

Watts v. Colvin

also Guiton v. Colvin, 546 F. App'x 137, 142 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing Hicks found 110 jobs in claimant's…

Torres v. Berryhill

There is, however, a "difference between the full range of light work and a reduced range of light work."…