Haynes v. Berryhill

Filing 19

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Defendant's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; affirming 18 Memorandum and Recommendations. The Commissioner's determination is vacated and this matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings as noted. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 3/8/2018. (kby)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 1:17-cv-00049-MOC-DCK
CHRISTOPHER MARLIN HAYNES,
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

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 (#18) is
AFFIRMED, plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#9) is GRANTED, defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment (#11) is DENIED, and the Commissioner’s determination is VACATED
and this matter REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings and development of
the claim in light of the Mascio violations, as discussed in the Recommendation.

Signed: March 8, 2018