From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arbaugh v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Oct 12, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-01878 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 12, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-01878

10-12-2017

LAURIE JO ARBAUGH, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Laurie Jo Arbaugh's ("Claimant") Complaint seeking review of the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Nancy A. Berryhill, denying the Claimant's application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. By Standing Order entered March 14, 2017, (ECF No. 3), this case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn to consider the pleadings and evidence, and to submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations (PF&R) for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on August 31, 2017, recommending that this Court deny Claimant's request for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 10), and grant Defendant's request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner, (ECF No. 11).

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 PF&R were originally due on September 18, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, DENIES Plaintiff's request for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 10), GRANTS Defendant's request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner, (ECF No. 11), AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, and DISMISSES this matter from this 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.

ENTER: October 12, 2017

/s/_________

THOMAS E. JOHNSTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Arbaugh v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Oct 12, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-01878 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 12, 2017)
Case details for

Arbaugh v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:LAURIE JO ARBAUGH, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION

Date published: Oct 12, 2017

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-01878 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 12, 2017)