Hutton v. Berryhill

District Court, S.D. West Virginia

Hutton v. Berryhill

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

KENNETH RAY HUTTON,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-00573

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Defendant.

ORDER

This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

. On January 16, 2018, Judge Tinsley submitted his Proposed Findings & Recommendations [ECF No. 10] (“PF&R”) and recommended that the court GRANT the plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [ECF No. 7] to the extent the plaintiff seeks remand pursuant to sentence four of

42 U.S.C. § 405

(g), DENY the defendant’s Brief in Support of Defendant’s Decision [ECF No. 8], REVERSE the final decision of the Commissioner, REMAND this case for further proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of

42 U.S.C. § 405

(g), and DISMISS this matter from the court’s docket. Neither party timely filed objections to the PF&R nor sought an extension of time. A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, 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). Because the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court accepts and incorporates herein the PF&R and orders judgment consistent therewith. The court GRANTS the plaintiffs Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [ECF No. 7] to the extent the plaintiff seeks remand pursuant to sentence four of

42 U.S.C. § 405

(g), DENIES the defendant’s Brief in Support of Defendant’s Decision [ECF No. 8], REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS this case for further proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of

42 U.S.C. § 405

(g), and DISMISSES this matter from the court’s docket. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: February 5, 2018 fo / YO _AOSEPH R. GOODWIN { UNITED STATES DISTI CT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown