Miller v. Astrue

Filing 37

ORDER denying 30 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and granting 32 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 3/16/2012. (Sawyer, D.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

No.7:11-CV-119-D

SHARON DENISE MILLER,
Plaintiff,

v.
MICHAEL 1. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

ORDER

On February 14,2012, Magistrate Judge Webb issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R") [D.E. 36]. In the M&R, Judge Webb recommended that the court deny Sharon Denise
Miller's ("Miller" or "plaintiff') motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 30], grant Michael 1.
Astrue's ("Commissioner" or "defendant") motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 32], and
affirm defendant's final decision. Neither party filed objections 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, the record, and the briefs. The court is satisfied that there
is no clear error on the face ofthe record. The court DENIES plaintiff's motion for judgment on the

pleadings [D.E. 30], GRANTS defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 32], and
AFFIRMS the defendant's final decision. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
SO ORDERED. This &

day of March 2012.

J
ES C. DEVER III
Chief United States District Judge

2