Ruth v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration

N.D. West Virginia

Ruth v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration

DecidedJanuary 4, 2021

Docket5:19-cv-00025

StatusUnknown

This text of Ruth v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration (Ruth v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. West Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ruth v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration, (N.D.W. Va. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Wheeling

RIKKI RUTH, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 5:19-CV-25 Judge Bailey COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James P. Mazzone [Doc. 25] dated December 4, 2020, to which neither party filed objections. 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, failure to file objections to the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendation permits the District Court to review the recommendation under the standards that the District Court believes are appropriate, and under these circumstances, the parties’ right to de novo review is waived. See Webb v. Califano, 468 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Cal. 1979). The Report and Recommendation (“R&R") specifically stated that objections were to be filed within fourteen days of service. Accordingly, because no objections have been filed, this report and recommendation will be reviewed for clear error. In this matter, the magistrate judge found that the plaintff's arguments were without

merit and that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's findings and conclusions. Upon review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 25] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED. For the reasons more fully stated in the R&R, plaintiff's Statement of Errors [Doc. 18] is DENIED and defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 22] is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, this Court further ORDERS that this matter be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and that it be STRICKEN from the docket of this Court. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of the defendant. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record. DATED: January 4, 20271.

BHN PRESTON BAILEY “=a UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Wheeling

RIKKI RUTH, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 5:19-CV-25 Judge Bailey COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James P. Mazzone [Doc. 25] dated December 4, 2020, to which neither party filed objections. 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, failure to file objections to the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendation permits the District Court to review the recommendation under the standards that the District Court believes are appropriate, and under these circumstances, the parties’ right to de novo review is waived. See Webb v. Califano, 468 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Cal. 1979). The Report and Recommendation (“R&R") specifically stated that objections were to be filed within fourteen days of service. Accordingly, because no objections have been filed, this report and recommendation will be reviewed for clear error. In this matter, the magistrate judge found that the plaintff's arguments were without

merit and that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's findings and conclusions. Upon review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 25] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED. For the reasons more fully stated in the R&R, plaintiff's Statement of Errors [Doc. 18] is DENIED and defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 22] is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, this Court further ORDERS that this matter be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and that it be STRICKEN from the docket of this Court. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of the defendant. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record. DATED: January 4, 20271.

BHN PRESTON BAILEY “=a UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ruth v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruth-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-wvnd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack