CRABTREE v. BERRYHILL

Filing 19

ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 09/16/2019, that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, (Doc. 15 ), is ADOPTED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (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. (Garland, Leah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ANGELA CRABTREE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL,
Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:18CV466

ORDER
This matter is before this court for review of the
Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) filed
on August 21, 2019, by the Magistrate Judge in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (Doc. 15.) In the Recommendation, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings, (Doc. 11), be denied, that Defendant’s Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. 13), be granted, and that
this action be dismissed with prejudice. The Recommendation was
served on the parties to this action on August 21, 2019. (Doc.
16.) Counsel for Plaintiff filed timely objections, (Doc. 17),
to the Recommendation, and Defendant responded in opposition,
(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 therefore adopts the
Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation, (Doc. 15), is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (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.
This the 16th day of September, 2019.

_______________________________________
United States District Judge

-2-