United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
OPINION AND ORDER DECLINING TO AFFIRM AND ADOPT REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE IN ITS ENTIRETY, GRANTING
THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING
THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 13, 2013, the plaintiff Todd Patrick Davis
(“Davis”) protectively filed his first
application under Title II of the Social Security Act for a
period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”) and under Title XVI of the Social
Security Act for Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”). The plaintiff alleged disability that
began on January 16, 2009, and December 20, 2010, later
amended to December 31, 2010.
claim was initially denied on May 16, 2013, and denied again
upon reconsideration on July 24, 2013. On July 21, 2014, the
plaintiff filed a written request for a hearing, which was
held before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Mary
Peltzer on August 13, 2014, in Charlottesville, Virginia.
November 6, 2014, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision to
the plaintiff, finding that he was not disabled within the
meaning of the Social Security Act. On February 19, 2016, the
Appeals Council denied the plaintiff's request for
review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of
April 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed a complaint to obtain
judicial review of the final decision of the defendant,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security Carolyn Colvin,
pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §405(g). ECF No. 1.
20, 2016, the Commissioner filed an answer and the
administrative record of the proceedings. ECF Nos. 6 and 7.
20, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings (ECF No. 9) and on August 11, 2016, the
Commissioner filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
review of the motions by the parties and the administrative
record, United States Magistrate Judge Michael John Aloi
issued a report and recommendation on July 28, 2017. ECF No.
13. The magistrate judge recommended that
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 9) be granted, Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) be denied, and the
decision of the Commissioner be vacated and that the case be
remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
for further proceedings.” ECF No. 13 at 13.
defendant then filed objections to the magistrate judge's
report and recommendation on August 8, 2017. ECF No. 14. The
plaintiff filed a response to the defendant's objections
on August 22, 2017. ECF No. 15.
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a
de novo review of any portion of the magistrate
judge's recommendation to which objection is timely made.
As to those portions of a recommendation to which no
objection is made, a magistrate judge's findings and
recommendation will be upheld unless they are “clearly
erroneous.” See Webb v. Califano, 458 F.Supp.
825 (E.D. Cal. 1979). Because the defendant filed objections,