Williams v. Colvin
ORDER adopting 28 Memorandum and Recommendations. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 12/16/2016. Certified copy sent via US mail to pro se plaintiff Gregory P. Williams at 82 Grands Drive, Saint Pauls, NC 28384. (Stouch, L.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
GREGORY P. WILLIAMS,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
This matter is before the Court on the Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Robert T Numbers, II, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). [DE 28]. The Court ADOPTS the M&R.
Plaintiff filed this action pro se appealing the denial of his application for benefits under
the Social Security Act. By order entered December 21, 2015, the Court referred this matter to
Magistrate Judge Numbers for frivolity review and, if necessary, entry of a memorandum and
recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B). [DE 11]. Magistrate Judge Numbers
determined that the complaint was not frivolous. [DE 12]. Defendant answered, and plaintiff was
sent a notice regarding when to file his motion for judgment on the pleadings. [DE 25]. Plaintiff
failed to do so, and Magistrate Judge Numbers entered an order directing plaintiff to file his
motion by August 18, 2016. [DE 27]. The Order further warned Plaintiff that his failure to
comply with the Order could result in dismissal of the case, without prejudice, both for failing to
prosecute and for failing to comply with an Order of Court. [DE 27]. Plaintiff neither filed his
motion nor requested additional time within which to do so. Accordingly, pursuant to
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Magistrate Judge Numbers recommended
that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice. [DE 28].
Plaintiff was given 14 days to object to the M&R but failed to do so.
A district court is required to review de novo those portions of an M&R to which a party
timely files specific objections or where there is plain error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court
need not conduct 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) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
The M&R recommends that plaintiffs complaint be dismissed without prejudice. As
noted above, no party has objected to the M&R and the time for doing so has passed. The Court
has reviewed the M&R and is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record.
Accordingly, the memorandum and recommendation is ADOPTED.
The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's M&R. [DE 28]. Accordingly, plaintiffs
complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.
SO ORDERED, this
j£ day of December, 2016.
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?