Moorefield v. Colvin
ORDER granting 18 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, denying 20 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and adopting 23 Memorandum and Recommendation - This action is REMANDED to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(G). Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 9/9/2014. (Tripp, S.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ROBERT RAY MOOREFIELD,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
On August 18, 2014, Magistrate Judge Swank issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R") [D.E. 23]. In the M&R, Judge Swank recommended that plaintiff's motion for judgment
on the pleadings [D.E. 18] be granted, that defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E.
20] be denied, and that the action be remanded to the Commissioner. Neither party objected to the
"The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of
those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
towhichobjectionismade." 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 of the record in order to accept the recommendation." ld. (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. 23]. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 18] is GRANTED, defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 20] is DENIED, and the action is REMANDED to the
Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
SO ORDERED. This _j_ day of September 2014.
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?