Summerfield v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration

N.D. West Virginia

Summerfield v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration

DecidedMay 1, 2020

Docket5:19-cv-00162

StatusUnknown

This text of Summerfield v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration (Summerfield 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

Summerfield v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration, (N.D.W. Va. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA WHEELING DOREEN SUMMERFIELD, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 5:19-CV-162 (Judge Bailey) ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 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 Robert W. Trumble [Doc. 23], dated April 16, 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). Service was accepted on the date the R&R was filed, April 16, 2020. To date, no objections have been filed; accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error. Upon review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 23] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the

reasons more fully stated therein. Accordingly, this Court finds substantial evidence exists in the record to support the ALJ’s findings, and this Court finds no legal error contained therein. As such, the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 13] is DENIED, the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 16] is GRANTED, and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendant. As a final matter, this civil action is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record. DATED: May 1, 2020.

UNI ATES DISTRICT JU

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 DOREEN SUMMERFIELD, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 5:19-CV-162 (Judge Bailey) ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 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 Robert W. Trumble [Doc. 23], dated April 16, 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). Service was accepted on the date the R&R was filed, April 16, 2020. To date, no objections have been filed; accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error. Upon review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 23] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the

reasons more fully stated therein. Accordingly, this Court finds substantial evidence exists in the record to support the ALJ’s findings, and this Court finds no legal error contained therein. As such, the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 13] is DENIED, the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 16] is GRANTED, and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendant. As a final matter, this civil action is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record. DATED: May 1, 2020.

UNI ATES DISTRICT JU

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Summerfield v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/summerfield-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-wvnd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack