Youngkin v. Astrue

Filing 47

ORDER granting 38 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, denying 40 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and adopting 46 Memorandum and Recommendations. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 9/16/2012. (Sawyer, D.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR TIlE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISION

No.5:11-CV-227-D

TERRY YOUNGKIN,
Plaintiff,

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

)

)

)

)
)
)
)
)
)

)

ORDER

On August 27,2012, Magistrate Judge Gates issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R") [D.E. 46]. In the M&R Judge Gates recommended that plaintiff's motion for judgment
on the pleadings [D.E. 38] be granted, that defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E.
40] 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 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 and the record. The court is satisfied that there is no clear
error on the face ofthe record. Accordingly, the court adopts the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 46].
Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 38] is GRANTED, defendant's motion for

judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 40] is DENIED, and the action is REMANDED to the
Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
SO ORDERED. This ~ day of September 2012.

fii/E" ...D_N"",,

2