LAWLESS v. COLVIN

Filing 18

ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 09/05/2017, that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. 14 ) is ADOPTED. FURTHER that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 10 ) is DENIED, that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 12 ) 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. (Taylor, Abby)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JEREMY JAMES LAWLESS,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:16CV498

ORDER
This matter is before this court for review of the
Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) filed
on July 25, 2017. (Doc. 14.) In the Recommendation, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Commissioner’s decision
finding no disability be affirmed, that Defendant’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 12) be granted, that Plaintiff’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 10) be denied, and
that this action be dismissed with prejudice. The Recommendation
was served on the parties to this action on July 25, 2017 (Doc.
15). Counsel for Plaintiff filed timely objections (Doc. 16) to
the Recommendation and counsel for the Commissioner filed a
response to Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 17).
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. 14) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 10) is
DENIED, that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings
(Doc. 12) 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.
This the 5th day of September, 2017.

_______________________________________
United States District Judge

- 2 -