Jones v. Colvin

Filing 17

ORDER denying 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; affirming Commr's denial of benefits; terminating 16 Memorandum and Recommendations.Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 8/27/2014. (cbb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL DOCKET NO.: 1:13CV212-RLV KIMBERLY JONES, Plaintiff, ) ) ) vs. ) ) CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ) Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) Memorandum & Order THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 11, 15). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B), United States Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler was designated to consider and recommend disposition in the aforesaid motion. In an opinion filed June 6, 2014, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff Jones’ motion be denied; that Defendant’s summary judgment motion be granted; and the Commissioner’s determination be affirmed. (Doc. 16 / M & R at 14). The time for filing objections has since passed, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), and no objections have been filed by either party in this matter. After a careful review of the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum & Recommendation, the Court finds that his findings of fact are supported by the record and his conclusions of law are consistent with and well supported by current case law. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315-16 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (holding that only a careful review is 1 required in considering a memorandum and recommendation absent specific objections). Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the Memorandum & Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and adopts it as the final decision of this Court for all purposes relating to this case. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is hereby DENIED; Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED; and the Commissioner’s denial of benefits hereby AFFIRMED. Signed: August 27, 2014 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?