Summary
In Jones, medical sources opined that Jones had certain social functioning limitations and mental status deficiencies because pain interfered with her ability to stay on task. The magistrate judge faulted the ALJ for not including medical source opinions in either the ALJ's residual functional assessment or in his hypothetical questions to the vocational expert or explain why he rejected these limitations.
Summary of this case from McCormick v. ColvinOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11-cv-00721
01-17-2013
ALICE J. JONES, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Alice Jones's Complaint seeking review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [Docket 2]. By Standing Order entered September 2, 2010 and filed in this case on October 11, 2011, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation ("PF&R"). Magistrate Judge Stanley submitted a PF&R on November 27, 2012 [Docket 15], recommending that this Court reverse the final decision of the Commissioner, remand this action for further proceedings, and dismiss this case 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 November 27, 2012 PF&R in this case were due on December 14, 2012. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Docket 15], REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings, DISMISSES the Complaint [Docket 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.
________________________
THOMAS E. JOHNSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE