ALLISON v. COLVIN

Filing 17

ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 09/26/2017 affirming and adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. 14 ) is ADOPTED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for judgment reversing or modifying the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, or remanding the cause for a rehearing (Doc. 9 ) is DENIED, that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 11 ) 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)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA VIRGINIA ANN ALLISON, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:16CV596 ORDER This matter is before this court for review of the Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) filed on August 31, 2017, by the Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (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. 11) be granted, that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment (Doc. 9) be denied, and that this action be dismissed with prejudice. The Recommendation was served on the parties to this action on August 31, 2017 (Doc. 15). Counsel for Plaintiff filed timely objections (Doc. 16) to the Recommendation. 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 objections were made and has made a de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. This court finds that Plaintiff’s objections do not change the substance of the United States Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Doc. 14), which is affirmed and adopted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Doc. 14) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment reversing or modifying the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, or remanding the cause for a rehearing (Doc. 9) is DENIED, that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 11) is GRANTED, that the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED, and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. - 2 - A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order. This the 26th day of September, 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?