Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-06061
09-01-2016
DANIEL L. WELSH, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ("Plaintiff's Motion"), (ECF No. 10), and Defendant's Brief in Support of Defendant's Decision ("Defendant's Motion"), (ECF No. 11). By Standing Order filed in this case on May 13, 2015, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for total pretrial management and submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition. (ECF No. 4.) On June 8, 2016, Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition (the "PF&R"), in which he recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff's Motion, deny Defendant's Motion, remand this case for further proceedings pursuant to the sixth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and place this action on the Court's inactive docket. (ECF No. 14 at 17.)
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). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the parties' right to appeal this Court's order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).
Objections to the PF&R in this case were due by June 27, 2016. (See ECF No. 14 at 17-18.) To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 14), to the extent it is consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order, GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion, (ECF No. 10), to the extent Plaintiff requests that the Court remand this matter based on new evidence, DENIES Defendant's Motion, (ECF No. 11), REMANDS this case for further proceedings pursuant to the sixth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the Court's active docket. The Court further ORDERS Defendant to comply with the filing requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) following the conclusion of the post-remand procedures in this case.
The Court notes that Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommends that the Court both remand this matter pursuant to the sixth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and reverse Defendant's final decision. (ECF No. 14 at 17.) However, when remanding a case pursuant to this provision, "[t]he district court does not affirm, modify, or reverse the Secretary's decision; it does not rule in any way as to the correctness of the administrative determination." Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98 (1991). As the Court remands this matter pursuant to the sixth sentence of Section 405(g), the Court declines to adopt the PF&R to the extent that Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommends that the Court reverse Defendant's final decision. (See ECF No. 14 at 17.) --------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
ENTER: September 1, 2016
/s/_________
THOMAS E. JOHNSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE