Bradley v. Berryhill

Filing 28

ORDER adopting 27 Memorandum and Recommendations; denying 21 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 24 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 3/8/2018. (Briggeman, N.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DMSION No. 5:17-CV-64-D ARLEEN BRADLEY, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ) NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ) Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) On February 16, 2018, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 27] and recommended that this court deny plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 21 ], grant defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 24], and affirm defendant's final decision. Neither party objected to the M&R. "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 recoinm.endations towhichobjectionismade." Diamond v. ColonialLife&Accidentlns. Co., 416F.3d310, 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~at 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 ofthe record. Accordingly, the court adopts the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 27]. In sum, plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 21] is DENIED, defendant's I motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 24] is GRANTED, defendant's final decision is AFFIRMED, and this action is DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the case. SO ORDERED. This_£__ day ofMarch 2018. 2

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?