From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tingler v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
Sep 11, 2008
Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-111 (N.D.W. Va. Sep. 11, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-111.

September 11, 2008


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert [Doc. 17] dated August 21, 2008, to which neither party filed objections. 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. However, failure to file objections to the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendation permits the District Court to review the recommendation under the standards that the District Court believes are appropriate, and under these circumstances, the parties' right to de novo review is waived. See Webb v. Califano, 468 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Cal. 1979).

Accordingly, because no objections have been filed, this report and recommendation ("R R") will be reviewed for clear error. Upon review of the R R and the record, it is the opinion of this Court that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 17] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED.

For reasons more fully stated in the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert [Doc. 17], this Court ORDERS that:

1. Claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14] be DENIED and this action be REMANDED to the ALJ to determine: 1) Whether any of claimant's three I.Q. tests were valid and if so, why, and if not, why not; 2) Whether any valid IQ test of Claimant taken after age 22, and other evidence of record, demonstrate or support the onset of the impairment before age 22; and 3) If the ALJ finds the onset of the impairment before age 22, then whether claimant met listing 12.05(C) and if so, why, and if not, why not.

2. Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 15] be DENIED for the same reasons set forth above.

It is so ORDERED.

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


Summaries of

Tingler v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
Sep 11, 2008
Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-111 (N.D.W. Va. Sep. 11, 2008)
Case details for

Tingler v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY TINGLER, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL…

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

Date published: Sep 11, 2008

Citations

Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-111 (N.D.W. Va. Sep. 11, 2008)

Citing Cases

Oyer v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

See Lewis v. Astrue, 2008 WL 191415 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2008). They have also held that the absence of IQ…