Sanders v. Colvin

Filing 18

ORDER affirming the 15 Memorandum and Recommendation; overruling 16 plaintiff's Objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation and denying request for Oral Argument; denying 11 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; and granting 13 Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment. The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this action is DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. on 7/19/2017. (khm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 1:16-cv-00236-MOC-DLH
CARY BRIAN SANDERS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
Vs.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on review of a Memorandum and
Recommendation (M&R) issued in this matter.

In the Memorandum and

Recommendation, the magistrate judge advised the parties of the right to file objections
within 14 days, all in accordance with 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(c).
Objections have been filed within the time allowed.
The Federal Magistrates Act of 1979, as amended, provides that “a district court
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1983). However, “when objections to strictly legal
issues are raised and no factual issues are challenged, de novo review of the record may be
dispensed with.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982). Similarly, de novo
review is not required by the statute “when a party makes general or conclusory objections
that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge’s proposed findings
and recommendations.” Id. Moreover, the statute does not on its face require any review
1

at all of issues that are not the subject of an objection. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
(1985); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d at 200. Nonetheless, a district judge is responsible for
the final determination and outcome of the case, and accordingly the court has conducted
a careful review of the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
In this matter, plaintiff has filed objections to the Memorandum and
Recommendation. Plaintiff’s argument repackages his memorandum of law filed in
support of the Motion for Summary Judgment (#12). Plaintiff neither quotes, paraphrases,
nor cites any portion of the magistrate judge’s M&R in his objections. Further, plaintiff
does not attempt to explain why the reasoning and detailed analysis of the magistrate judge
is incorrect, and instead argues that the Administrative Law Judge was following a
“mechanical prototype.” (#16) at 3.
In this case, the magistrate judge’s memorandum provides legal analysis as to why
plaintiff’s assignments of error are without merit and further provides reasons why the final
determination by the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence.
The plaintiff also requests oral argument on this matter. The court may enter an
Order without oral argument and motions are usually ruled upon without oral arguments.
L.Cv.R. 7.1(a). Here, no unique or unusual circumstances exist, and oral argument is
unnecessary as the court’s decision-making process would not be aided by oral argument.
After careful review, the court determines that the recommendation of the
magistrate judge is fully consistent with and supported by current law. Further, the factual
background and recitation of issues is supported by the applicable pleadings. Based on
such determinations, the court will fully affirm the Memorandum and Recommendation
2

and grant relief in accordance therewith.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation
(#15) is AFFIRMED, plaintiff’s Objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation
are OVERRULED, the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#13) is
GRANTED, the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#11) is DENIED, the request
for Oral Argument (#16) is DENIED, the final decision of the Commissioner is
AFFIRMED, and this action is DISMISSED.

Signed: July 19, 2017

3