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)

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