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)
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?