Brooks v. Astrue

Filing 33

ORDER granting 27 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and denying 29 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by US District Judge James C. Dever III on 9/2/2011. (Sawyer, D.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

NORTHERN DIVISION

No.2:10-CV-37-D

JACQUELINE V. BROOKS,
Plaintiff,

v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

On August 17, 2011, Magistrate Judge Daniel issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R"). In that M&R, Judge Daniel recommended that plaintiff's motion for judgment on the
pleadings be granted, that defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, and that the
action be remanded to the Commissioner. No party filed objections to the M&R.
"The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of
those portions ofthe [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed fmdings or recommendations
to which objection is made." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (alteration in original) (emphasis removed) (quotation omitted). Absent a timely objection,
"a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is
no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Id. (quotation
omitted).
The court has reviewed the M&R, the record, and the briefs. The court is satisfied that there
is no clear error on the face of the record.

Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is

GRANTED, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED, and the action is
REMANDED to the Commissioner as set forth in the M&R.

SO ORDERED. This ~ day of September 2011.

~c~~~~

United States District Judge

2