TOMS v. ASTRUE

Filing 27

ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN JR. on 04/01/2014; that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. 20 ) is ADOPTED. FURTHER that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 12 ) is DENIED, that the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 18 ) is GRANTED, that the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED, and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order. (Garland, Leah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

MOLLIE TOMS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.

1:10CV856

ORDER
This matter is before this court for review of the
Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) filed
on February 7, 2014, by the Magistrate Judge in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

(Doc. 20.)

In the Recommendation, the

Magistrate Judge recommends that the Commissioner’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence, that Plaintiff’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 12) be denied, that Defendant’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 18) be granted, and
that the final decision of the Commissioner be upheld.

The

Recommendation was served on the parties to this action on
February 7, 2014.

Counsel for Plaintiff filed timely objections

(Doc. 22) to the Recommendation, counsel for the Commissioner

filed a response to the objections (Doc. 24), and Plaintiff’s
counsel filed a reply (Doc. 25).
This court is required to “make a de novo determination of
those portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s] report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This court “may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the [M]agistrate [J]udge. . . . [O]r recommit the matter
to the [M]agistrate [J]udge with instructions.”

Id.

This court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the
Recommendation to which objection was made and has made a de
novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate
Judge’s Recommendation.

This court therefore adopts the

Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation (Doc. 20) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that

Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 12) is
DENIED, that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings (Doc. 18) is GRANTED, that the Commissioner’s decision
is AFFIRMED, and that this action is dismissed with prejudice.
A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered
contemporaneously with this Order.
- 2 -

This the 1st day of April, 2014.

_______________________________________
United States District Judge

- 3 -