Boykin v. Astrue
ORDER granting 29 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and denying 31 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 2/28/2012. (Sawyer, D.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTII CAROLINA
BRENDA K. BOYKIN,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
On February 6,2012, Magistrate Judge Daniel issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R") [D.E. 35]. In the M&R, Judge Daniel recommended that the court grant Brenda K.
Boykin's ("Boykin" or "plaintiff") motion for judgment on the pleadings, deny Michael J. Astrue's
("Commissioner" or "defendant") motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remand the action to
the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent
with the M&R. No party objected 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 findings 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 and 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 ofthe 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 ofthe record. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 29]
is GRANTED, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 31] is DENIED, and the
action is REMANDED to the Commissioner for proceedings as set forth in the M&R.
SO ORDERED. This 18.. day of February 2012.
fUnited 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?