From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matthew T. v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION
Mar 18, 2021
Civil Action No. 7:19-cv-00807 (W.D. Va. Mar. 18, 2021)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 7:19-cv-00807

03-18-2021

MATTHEW T., Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant.


ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT

In this social security case, plaintiff Matthew T. and defendant Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the Commissioner), both move for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the court referred the motions to U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou for a report and recommendation (R&R).

On February 4, 2021, the magistrate judge issued his R&R, recommending that the court grant in part Matthew's motion, deny the Commissioner's motion, and remand the matter for further proceedings under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (R&R 1, 11-12, Dkt. No. 25.) The magistrate judge also advised the parties of their right under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) to file written objections to his proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days of service of the R&R. (Id. at 12.)

The deadline to object to the R&R has passed, and no party has filed an objection. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must 'only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

Upon reviewing the record here, the court is satisfied that there is no clear error. Accordingly, it hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. The R&R (Dkt. No. 25) is ADOPTED;

2. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 15) is GRANTED IN PART;

3. The Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 20) is DENIED;

4. The Commissioner's final decision is REVERSED;

5. The case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R & R, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and

6. This matter is STRUCK from the active docket of the court.

The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to all counsel of record.

Entered: March 18, 2021.

/s/

Elizabeth K. Dillon

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Matthew T. v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION
Mar 18, 2021
Civil Action No. 7:19-cv-00807 (W.D. Va. Mar. 18, 2021)
Case details for

Matthew T. v. Saul

Case Details

Full title:MATTHEW T., Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner, Social Security…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION

Date published: Mar 18, 2021

Citations

Civil Action No. 7:19-cv-00807 (W.D. Va. Mar. 18, 2021)

Citing Cases

White v. Kijakazi

Since the case law on this issue is scarce in the District of Maryland, this Court will adopt the…