Jackson v. Colvin
ORDER adopting 26 Memorandum and Recommendations; denying 20 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 23 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 2/19/2017. (Briggeman, N.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
PEARLINE SHAW JACKSON,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
On January 23, 2017, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 26]. In that M&R, Judge Numbers recommended that this court
deny plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 20], grant defendant's motion for
judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 23], and affirm defendant's final decision. Neither party objected
"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 recommendations
towhichobjectionismade." Diamond v. ColonialLife&Accidentlns. Co., 416 F.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 itselfthat
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
In sum, plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 20] is DENIED, defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 23] is GRANTED, defendant's final decision is
AFFIRMED, and this action is DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the case.
SO ORDERED. This
day of February 2017.
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?