KING v. BERRYHILL

Filing 19

ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 09/25/2019, that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, (Doc. 15 ), is ADOPTED. FURTHER that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Reversing the Decision of the Co mmissioner of Social Security, (Doc. 10 ), is DENIED, that Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. 12 ), 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
DONNA R. KING,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL,
Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:18CV377

ORDER
This matter is before this court for review of the
Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) filed
on August 16, 2019, by the Magistrate Judge in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (Doc. 15.) In the Recommendation, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Commissioner’s decision
finding no disability be affirmed, that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Judgment Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security, (Doc. 10), be denied, that Defendant’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. 12), be granted, and that this
action be dismissed with prejudice. The Recommendation was
served on the parties to this action on August 16, 2019, (Doc.
16). Counsel for Plaintiff filed timely objections, (Doc. 17),
to the Recommendation and counsel for the Commissioner filed a
response to Plaintiff’s objections, (Doc. 18).

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 finds that Plaintiff’s
objections do not change the substance of the United States
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, (Doc. 15), which is affirmed
and adopted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation, (Doc. 15), is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment Reversing the Decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security, (Doc. 10), is DENIED, that
Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. 12), 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.

- 2 -

This the 25th day of September, 2019.

_______________________________________
United States District Judge

- 3 -