From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS
Jun 8, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-107 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Jun. 8, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-107 (BAILEY)

06-08-2012

GLENN D. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


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 David J. Joel. By Local Rule, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Joel for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation ("R & R"). Magistrate Judge Joel filed his R&R on May 16, 2012 [Doc. 16]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court affirm the decision of the Administrative Law Judge and dismiss the plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1].

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 Joel's R&R were due by June 4, 2012. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R 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. 16] 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 Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 10] and GRANTS the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14]. Accordingly, this Court hereby DENIES and DISMISSES the plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1]. Therefore, this matter is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. Finally, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendant.

It is so ORDERED.

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

___________________________

JOHN PRESTON BAILEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Williams v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS
Jun 8, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-107 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Jun. 8, 2012)
Case details for

Williams v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:GLENN D. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

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

Date published: Jun 8, 2012

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-107 (BAILEY) (N.D.W. Va. Jun. 8, 2012)