Green v. Social Security Administrator et al

Filing 34

ORDER adopting 33 Memorandum and Recommendations; granting 26 Motion to Remand to Social Security Administration; and denying 29 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 7/28/2016. Certified copy sent via US Mail to Deborah G. Green at 759 Medical Center Road, Gates, NC 27937. (Romine, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN DIVISION
No. 2:15-CV-8-BO
DEBORAH G. GREEN,

)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYNW. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court following its referral of this matter to United States
Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II, for memorandum and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b). No objections to the memorandum and recommendation have been filed, and the matter
is ripe for review.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action prose against several defendants seeking review of the denial of
her application for disability benefits by the Social Security Administration. [DE 5]. By order
entered July 14, 2015, the Court dismissed, without opposition from plaintiff, all defendants
other than the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. By order entered December 14, 2015,
the Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Numbers for a memorandum and
recommendation on plaintiff's motion to remand and defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings. [DE 32].

DISCUSSION
A district court is required to review de novo those portions of an M&R to which a party
timely files specific objections or where there is plain error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court
need not conduct 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." Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F .3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

The M&R recommends that plaintiff's motion for remand be granted and that defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied. As noted above, no party has objected to the
M&R and the time for doing so has passed. The Court has reviewed the M&R and is satisfied
that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the memorandum and
recommendation is ADOPTED.
CONCLUSION
The memorandum and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Numbers is hereby
ADOPTED. Plaintiffs motion to remand [DE 26] is GRANTED, defendant's motion for
judgment on the pleadings [DE 29] is DENIED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Acting
Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the recommendation.

SO ORDERED, this 1.fday of July, 2016.

~.-.y_k/,~

TERRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2