MARTIN v. BERRYHILL

Filing 19

ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 9/11/2019; that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, (Doc. 16 ), is ADOPTED. FURTHER that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Reversing or Modifying the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security or Remanding the Cause for a Rehearing, (Doc. 11 ), is DENIED, that Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. 13 ), 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. (Sheets, Jamie)

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

AIOFIMI S. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL, 1
Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:18CV161

ORDER
This matter is before this court for review of the
Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) filed
on August 7, 2019, by the Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). (Doc. 16.) In the Recommendation, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment
Reversing or Modifying the Decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security, (Doc. 11), be denied, that Defendant’s Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. 13), be granted, and that

1

The United States Senate confirmed Andrew M. Saul as the
Commissioner of Social Security on June 4, 2019, and he took the
oath of office on June 17, 2019. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Andrew M. Saul is substituted
for Nancy A. Berryhill as the Defendant in this suit. Neither
the Court nor the parties need take any further action to
continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section
205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

this action be dismissed with prejudice. The Recommendation was
served on the parties to this action on August 7, 2019. (Doc.
17.) Counsel for Plaintiff filed timely objections, (Doc. 18),
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 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. 16), is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment Reversing or Modifying the
Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security or Remanding the
Cause for a Rehearing, (Doc. 11), is DENIED, that Defendant’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. 13), is GRANTED,

-2-

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 11th day of September, 2019.

_______________________________________
United States District Judge

-3-