From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lamp v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Feb 18, 2009
Civil Action No. 3:07 CV 130 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 18, 2009)

Summary

adopting report and recommendation wherein magistrate judge recognized that ALJ could rely on medical source opinion affirming SDM's opinion

Summary of this case from Bays v. Colvin

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:07 CV 130.

February 18, 2009


ORDER


It will be recalled that the above-styled social security appeal was instituted on September 27, 2007, with the filing of a Complaint by the Plaintiff, Richard W. Lamp.

It will further be recalled that the case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull in accordance with Rule 83.12 of the Local Rules of General Practice and Procedure.

On January 4, 2008, a Motion For Summary Judgment was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff, and on January 29, 2008, a Motion For Summary Judgment was filed on behalf of the Defendant. Finally, on February 12, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a Response to the Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment.

On September 25, 2008, Magistrate Judge Kaull entered an Opinion/Report And Recommendation (Docket No. 13) wherein he recommended that the Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment be granted, and that the Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgement be denied.

In said Opinion/Report And Recommendation, the parties were directed, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to file any written objections thereto with the Clerk of Court within ten (10) days after being served with a copy of said Opinion/Report And Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Kaull's Opinion/Report And Recommendation expressly provided that a failure to timely file objections would result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of this Court based thereon.

The docket in the above-styled civil action reflects that the Plaintiff's Objection To The Opinion/Report And Recommendation was filed on October 10, 2008.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge's findings to which objection is made. The Court is not, however, 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 thecxx findings or recommendation to which no objections are made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

As previously noted, on October 10, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an Objection To The Opinion/Report And Recommendation. The Court has conducted a de novo review only as to the portions of the Opinion/Report and Recommendation to which the Plaintiff objected. The remaining portions of the Opinion/Report And Recommendation to which the Plaintiff has not objected have been reviewed for clear error.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not, in his Objection, raised any issues that were not thoroughly considered by Magistrate Judge Kaull in said Opinion/Report And Recommendation. The Court is of the opinion that Magistrate Judge Kaull's Opinion/Report and Recommendation accurately reflects the law applicable to the facts and circumstances before the Court in the above-styled action. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Kaull's Opinion/Report And Recommendation (Docket No. 13) be, and is hereby, ACCEPTED in whole and that this civil action be disposed of in accordance with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that:

1. The Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment (Docket No. 11) is GRANTED;
2. The Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment (Docket No. 10) is DENIED; and
3. The above-styled civil action is DISMISSED and RETIRED from the docket of this Court.

Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter a separate Judgment Order affirming the decision of the Defendant.

The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit copies of this Order and the Judgment Order to counsel of record.


Summaries of

Lamp v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Feb 18, 2009
Civil Action No. 3:07 CV 130 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 18, 2009)

adopting report and recommendation wherein magistrate judge recognized that ALJ could rely on medical source opinion affirming SDM's opinion

Summary of this case from Bays v. Colvin

affirming ALJ's reliance on RFC assessment prepared by SDM where physician subsequently noted on the report "I have reviewed all the evidence in file and assessment 11/03/04 is affirmed as written."

Summary of this case from Lawrence v. Astrue
Case details for

Lamp v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD W. LAMP, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL…

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

Date published: Feb 18, 2009

Citations

Civil Action No. 3:07 CV 130 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 18, 2009)

Citing Cases

Lawrence v. Astrue

See also Kempel v. Astrue, 2010 WL 58910 (D. Kan. 2010) ("Because Dr. Siemsen affirmed [the SDM's]…

Bays v. Colvin

all of the record evidence. See, e.g., Gerard v. Colvin, No. 13-2029, 2014 WL 2095169, at *4 (D. Kan. May…