Day v. Colvin

Filing 20

ORDER that 17 Memorandum and Recommendation is ACCEPTED; 18 Plaintiff's Objections thereto are OVERRULED; 9 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; 14 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and this case is hereby DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 3/3/2017. (khm)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00033-MR-DLH

CYNTHIA JEAN DAY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. 9]; the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment

[Doc.

14];

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Memorandum

and

Recommendation regarding the disposition of those motions [Doc. 17]; and
the Plaintiff’s Objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc.
18].
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a specific Order of referral of the
District Court, the Honorable Dennis L. Howell, United States Magistrate
Judge, was designated to consider these pending motions in the above-

captioned action and to submit to this Court a recommendation for the
disposition of these motions.
On December 5, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Memorandum and
Recommendation [Doc. 17] in this case containing proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law in support of a recommendation regarding the
motions [Docs. 9 and 14]. The parties were advised that any objections to
the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation were to be filed
in writing within fourteen (14) days of service. The Plaintiff timely filed her
Objections on December 19, 2016 [Doc. 18].
After careful consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum
and Recommendation [Doc. 17] and the Plaintiff’s Objections thereto [Doc.
18], the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact are
correct and that his proposed conclusions of law are consistent with current
case law. Accordingly, the Court hereby overrules the Plaintiff’s Objections
and

accepts

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

recommendation

that

the

Commissioner’s decision in this case be affirmed.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and
Recommendation [Doc. 17] is ACCEPTED; the Plaintiff’s Objections thereto
[Doc. 18] are OVERRULED; the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

2

[Doc. 9] is DENIED; the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.
14] is GRANTED; and this case is hereby DISMISSED.
A judgment shall be entered simultaneously herewith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: March 3, 2017

3