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)
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?