Pritchard v. Berryhill

Filing 18

ORDER: The 17 Memorandum and Recommendation is AFFIRMED, plaintiff's 9 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, defendant's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. on 3/13/2018. (maf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 1:17-cv-00033-MOC-DLH
CHERYL PRITCHARD,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
Vs.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Defendant.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on review of a Memorandum and Recommendation
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). No objections have been filed within the time allowed.
I.

Applicable Standard of Review
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 at all of issues that are not the subject of an objection.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Camby, 718 F.2d at 200. Nonetheless, a district judge
1

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.
II.

Discussion
After such careful review, the Court determines that the recommendation of the magistrate

judge is fully consistent with and supported by current law. Further, the brief 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 and grant relief in accordance
therewith.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation (#17) is
AFFIRMED, plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#9) is DENIED, defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (#15) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED.

Signed: March 13, 2018

2