WILLIAMS v. COLVIN
Filing
17
ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 03/20/2018, that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. 13 ) is ADOPTED. FURTHER that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 9 ) is DENIED, that Defendant's Motio n for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 11 ) 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
CYNTHIA L. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:16CV1176
ORDER
This matter is before this court for review of the
Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation filed on February 5, 2018,
by the Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
(Doc. 13.) In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Commissioner’s decision finding no
disability be affirmed, that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings (Doc. 9) be denied, that Defendant’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 11) be granted, and that this
action be dismissed with prejudice. The Recommendation was
served on the parties to this action on February 5, 2018. (Doc.
14.) Counsel for Plaintiff filed timely objections (Doc. 15) to
the Recommendation, and counsel for the Commissioner filed a
response to Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 16).
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. 13) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (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 be dismissed with prejudice.
A judgment dismissing this action will be entered
contemporaneously with this Order.
This the 20th day of March, 2018.
_______________________________________
United States District Judge
- 2 -
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?