From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Myers-Martin v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Elkins
Dec 13, 2010
Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-127 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 13, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-127 (BAILEY).

December 13, 2010


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert. By Local Rule, 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 November 18, 2010 [Doc. 6]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court deny the plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees [Doc. 2].

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 Federal Rule 72(b) of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff's objections were due no later than December 6, 2010. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the report and recommendation for clear error.

Upon careful review of the report and recommendation, it is the opinion of this Court that the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 6] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. As such, this Court hereby DENIES the plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees [Doc. 2]. Therefore, the plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to pay the full filing fee no later than December 27, 2010.

It is so ORDERED.

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

DATED: December 13, 2010.


Summaries of

Myers-Martin v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Elkins
Dec 13, 2010
Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-127 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 13, 2010)
Case details for

Myers-Martin v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:LISA MYERS-MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Elkins

Date published: Dec 13, 2010

Citations

Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-127 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 13, 2010)