From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hayhurst v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS
Aug 4, 2014
Civil Action No. 2:13-CV-36 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 4, 2014)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 2:13-CV-36 (BAILEY)

08-04-2014

BEVERLY HAYHURST, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security; Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert [Doc. 19]. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Seibert concluded that the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application for supplemental security income is not supported by substantial evidence [Id.]. As such, the magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 10] be granted in part and denied in part, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 17] be granted in part and denied in part, and the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") be remanded with instructions to allow the ALJ to sufficiently state specific reasons for his decision to attribute little weight to Dr. Murphy's opinions [See Doc. 19 at 37-38].

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, 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 a 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 Seibert's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). The magistrate judge entered the R&R on June 11, 2014; service was immediately made to counsel for the plaintiff. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this court has reviewed the R&R for clear error.

Upon careful consideration, it is the opinion of this Court that the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 19] should be, and hereby is, ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, this Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 10], GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 17], and REMANDS with instructions the decision of the Administrative Law Judge to allow the Administrative Law Judge to sufficiently state specific reasons for his decision to attribute little weight to Dr. Murphy's opinions, especially relating to her opinions regarding the plaintiff's treatment notes. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

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

DATED: August 4, 2014.

/s/_________

JOHN PRESTON BAILEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Hayhurst v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS
Aug 4, 2014
Civil Action No. 2:13-CV-36 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 4, 2014)
Case details for

Hayhurst v. Colvin

Case Details

Full title:BEVERLY HAYHURST, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of…

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

Date published: Aug 4, 2014

Citations

Civil Action No. 2:13-CV-36 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 4, 2014)