LEE v. BERRYHILL

Filing 17

ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 9/17/2018; that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. 13 ) is ADOPTED. FURTHER that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 7 ) is DENIED , that Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 10 ) 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. (Sheets, Jamie)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

RHONDA FAYE LEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:17CV475

ORDER
This matter is before this court for review of the
Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation filed on June 4, 2018, by
the Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
(Doc. 13.) In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
(Doc. 7) be denied, that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (Doc. 10) be granted, and that the Commissioner’s
decision finding no disability be affirmed. The Recommendation
was served on the parties to this action on June 4, 2018. (Doc.
14.) Counsel for Plaintiff filed timely objections (Doc. 15) to
the Recommendation. Defendant’s counsel filed a response (Doc.
16) to Plaintiff’s objections.

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 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. 7) is
DENIED, that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
(Doc. 10) 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.
This the 17th day of September, 2018.

_____________________________________
United States District Judge
- 2 -