From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ryman v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS
May 2, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-37 (N.D.W. Va. May. 2, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-37

05-02-2017

JAMES A. RYMAN, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


(BAILEY)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. [Doc. 17]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed report and recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Trumble filed his R&R on April 17, 2017, wherein he recommends this Court grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment and deny the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

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 finding to which objection is made. However, 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). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes waiver of de novo review and the right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour , 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce , 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of service. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.

Upon careful review, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 17] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. As such, this Court hereby GRANTS the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 10] and DENIES the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 7].

Accordingly, this Court hereby DENIES and DISMISSES the plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1] and ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendant.

It is so ORDERED.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record herein.

DATED: May 2, 2017.

/s/ _________

JOHN PRESTON BAILEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Ryman v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS
May 2, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-37 (N.D.W. Va. May. 2, 2017)
Case details for

Ryman v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:JAMES A. RYMAN, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS

Date published: May 2, 2017

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-37 (N.D.W. Va. May. 2, 2017)

Citing Cases

Richard S. v. O'Malley

standard of review” because he “impermissibly discredited [Richard's] allegations due to lack of objective…