Mitchell v. Colvin

Filing 32

ORDER adopting 31 Memorandum and Recommendation, granting 25 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and denying 27 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 7/28/2016. (Grady, B.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:15-CV-00209-F
LARRY D. MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R")
[DE-31] of United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., regarding the parties' cross
motions for judgment on the pleadings [DE-25, -27], pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This court is charged with making a
de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which specific objections are

made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). In the absence of a timely-filed 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 v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416
F .3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
On July 11, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a M&R recommending that Plaintiffs

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [DE-25] be ALLOWED, Defendant's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings [DE-27] be DENIED, and the matter be remanded for further
proceedings. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for
filing objections to the M&R and the consequences if they failed to do so. Defendant has filed
no objections, and the time for doing so expired on July 25, 2016.
Upon careful review of the M&R and of the record generally, and having found no clear
error, the court hereby ADOPTS the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [DE-25] is ALLOWED,
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [DE-27] is DENIED, and the matter is
remanded for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
This, the

,t ~·day of July, 2016.
JAsc:F0X
Senior United States District Judge

2