Summary
finding that failure to ask about conflicts between the VE testimony and the DOT was not a harmless error when apparent conflicts did exits
Summary of this case from Fender v. BerryhillOpinion
CASE NO. 2:09-cv-01006.
January 31, 2011
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Stanley submitted to the court her Proposed Findings and Recommendation ("PF R") on December 20, 2010, in which she recommended that the district court reverse the final decision of the Commissioner and remand the case for further proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Judge Stanley further recommended that the court dismiss this case from its docket.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Stanley's PF R. The failure of any party to file such objections constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).
The parties failed to file any objections to the Magistrate Judge's PF R within the seventeen-day period. Having reviewed the PF R filed by Magistrate Judge Stanley, the court adopts the findings and recommendation contained therein.
Accordingly, the court hereby (1) CONFIRMS and ACCEPTS Judge Stanley's factual and legal analysis, (2) REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, (3) REMANDS the case for further proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and (4) DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the court's docket.
The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to all counsel of record.
It is SO ORDERED this 31st day of January, 2011.