MCKEITHAN v. COLVIN

Filing 15

ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 9/4/2015 adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. 12 ); that Plaintiff's motion for judgment reversing the Commissioner (Doc. 8 ) is DENIED, that Defendant's mo tion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 10 ) is GRANTED, that the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED, and that this action be dismissed with prejudice. A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order. (Sheets, Jamie)

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

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14CV688

ORDER
This matter is before this court for review of the
Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) filed
on July 23, 2015, by the Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b).

(Doc. 12.)

In the Recommendation, the

Magistrate Judge recommends that the Commissioner’s decision
finding no disability be affirmed, that Plaintiff’s motion for
judgment reversing the Commissioner (Doc. 8) be denied, that
Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 10) be
granted, and that this action be dismissed with prejudice.
Recommendation was served on the parties to this action on
July 23, 2015 (Doc. 13).

Counsel for Plaintiff filed timely

objections (Doc. 14) to the Recommendation.

The

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. 12) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that

Plaintiff’s motion for judgment reversing the Commissioner (Doc.
8) is DENIED, that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings (Doc. 10) is GRANTED, that the Commissioner’s decision
is AFFIRMED, and that this action be dismissed with prejudice.
A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered
contemporaneously with this Order.

- 2 -

This the 4th day of September, 2015.

_______________________________________
United States District Judge

- 3 -