Lewis v. Colvin
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations regarding 36 Memorandum and Recommendations; denying 24 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 26 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 8/23/2014. (Edwards, S.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EMILY J. LEWIS,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
On August 5, 2014, Magistrate Judge Gates issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R") [D.E. 36]. In that M&R, Judge Gates recommended that the court deny plaintiffs motion
for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 24], grant defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings
[D.E. 26], and affirm defendant's fmal 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 fmdings or recommendations
to which objection is made." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,315 (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 that
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 of the record. Accordingly, the court adopts the conclusions in the M&R
In sum, plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 24] is DENIED, defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 26] is GRANTED, defendant's final decision is
AFFIRMED, and this action is DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the case.
day of August 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?