Howard v. Colvin
ORDER adopting 22 Memorandum and Recommendations; granting 17 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 19 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 9/11/2017. (Briggeman, N.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CLIFTON R. HOWARD,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
On August 25, 2017, Magistrate Judge Jones issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R") [D.E. 22] and recommended that plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 17]
be granted, that defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 19] be denied, and that the
action be remanded to the Commissioner. Neither party objected to the M&R.
"The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination ofthose
portions of the magistrate judge's report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)
(emphasis, alteration, and quotation omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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." Diamond, 416 F.3d at
315 (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. Accordingly, the court adopts the conclusions in the M&R
[D.E. 22]. Plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 17] is GRANTED, defendant's
motion for judgm:ent on the pleadings [D.E. 19] is DENJED, and the action is REMANDED to the
Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S. C. § 405(g).
SO ORDERED. This _l_r day of September 2017.
Chief United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?