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.)

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