PETTIFORD v. COLVIN

Filing 26

ORDER signed by Judge William L. Osteen, Jr., on 03/23/2017. The court adopts the Recommendation 19 of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 10 is DENIED, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 17 is GRANTED, and the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED, and this action is dismissed with prejudice. A judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order.(Coyne, Michelle)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA BRYANT KEITH PETTIFORD, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:16CV220 ORDER This matter is before this court for review of the Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) filed on February 24, 2017, by the Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (Doc. 19.) In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Commissioner’s decision finding no disability be affirmed, that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10) be denied, that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 17) be granted, and that this action be dismissed with prejudice. The Recommendation was served on the parties to this action on February 24, 2017 (Doc. 20). Counsel for Plaintiff filed timely objections (Doc. 22) to the Recommendation, counsel for the Commissioner filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 23), and counsel for Plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. 25) to the Commissioner’s response. 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. 19) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10) is DENIED, that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 17) 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 23rd day of March, 2017. _______________________________________ United States District Judge - 3 -

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?