Summary
remanding where "although the ALJ acknowledged AR 00-1, in his decision, he did not explain adequately how he considered and weighed the prior decision, especially regarding the RFC assessment and step two findings."
Summary of this case from Craft v. ColvinOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-cv-29150
02-23-2015
CHRISTOPHER BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are the parties' Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF 10 & 11.) By Standing Order entered on April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on December 1, 2013, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition ("PF&R"). (ECF 4.) Magistrate Judge VanDervort filed his PF&R on January 30, 2015, which recommends that this Court grant Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF 10), deny Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF 11), reverse the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's application for supplemental security income, remand this matter for further proceedings, and dismiss this matter from the Court's docket.
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 Plaintiff's 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). In addition, this Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party "makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
Objections to the PF&R in this case were due by February 17, 2015. To date, no objections were filed.
Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF 10), DENIES Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF 11), REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS this matter for further proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and DISMISSES this matter from the Court's docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
ENTERED: February 23, 2015
/s/_________
THOMAS E. JOHNSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE