From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Jul 17, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-6 (N.D.W. Va. Jul. 17, 2015)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-6

07-17-2015

JODI R. MOORE, 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 this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert [Doc. 18]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Seibert for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation ("R & R"). Magistrate Judge Seibert filed his R & R on June 22, 2015, wherein he recommends this Court dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for failure to prosecute.

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 docket reflects that service was accepted on June 24, 2015 [Doc. 19]. No objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.

The plaintiff filed her Complaint on January 13, 2015, to which the defendant answered. The plaintiff failed to file her motion for summary judgment; therefore, on May 18, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause that provided the plaintiff until June 18, 2015, to file with the Court and serve on the defendant her motion for summary judgment. Nevertheless, the plaintiff failed to file her motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, upon careful review of the docket and the R & R, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 18] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, this Court hereby DISMISSES the plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1] and ORDERS the this matter be STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. The Clerk is directed to enter a separate judgment in favor of the defendant.

It is so ORDERED.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to counsel of record and mail a copy to the pro se plaintiff.

DATED: July 17, 2015.

/s/ _________

JOHN PRESTON BAILEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Moore v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Jul 17, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-6 (N.D.W. Va. Jul. 17, 2015)
Case details for

Moore v. Colvin

Case Details

Full title:JODI R. MOORE, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of…

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

Date published: Jul 17, 2015

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-6 (N.D.W. Va. Jul. 17, 2015)