Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14CV126
02-06-2015
LORETTA M. HOOK, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
()
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE FROM THIS COURT'S ACTIVE DOCKET
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B), Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Court Rule 4.01(d), on July 23, 2014, the Court referred this Social Security action to United States Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull with directions to submit proposed findings of fact and a recommendation for disposition.
On December 1, 2014, Magistrate Judge Kaull filed his Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), which directed the parties, in accord with 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Rule 6(e), Fed. R. Civ. P., to file with the Clerk of Court any written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the R&R. The R&R further advised the parties that failure to file objections would result in a waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of this Court. After being so advised, the parties did not file any objections.
Upon consideration of Magistrate Judge Kaull's recommendation, and having received no written objections, the Court accepts and approves the R&R, and ORDERS that this civil action be disposed of in accordance with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court
The failure of the parties to object to the Report and Recommendation not only waives their appellate rights in this matter, but also relieves the Court of any obligation to conduct a de novo review of the issues presented. See Wells v. Shriners Hospital, 109 F.3d 198, 199-200 (4
1. DENIES the Commissioner's motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. no. 11);
2. GRANTS the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (dkt. no. 9);
3. REMANDS the case to the Commissioner for consideration pursuant to the recommendations contained in the R&R; and
4. DISMISSES this civil action WITH PREJUDICE and RETIRES it from the docket of this Court.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 58, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter a separate judgment order and to transmit copies of this Order to counsel of record. If a petition for fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) is contemplated, the plaintiff is warned that, as announced in Shalala v. Schaefer, 113 S.Ct. 2625 (1993), the time for such a petition expires ninety days after the entry of this Order. DATED: February 6, 2015.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
th Cir. 1997); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,148-153 (1985).