Wheeler v. Saul
ORDER that the 17 Memorandum and Recommendation is AFFIRMED, Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, Defendant's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and this matter is REMANDED for the purposes stated in the Memorandum and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. on 1/7/2022. (khm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JASON MICHAEL WHEELER,
KILOLO KIJAKAZI ,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
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.
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
Case 1:20-cv-00388-MOC-WCM Document 18 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 3
“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.
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.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation (#17) is
AFFIRMED, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#11) is GRANTED, Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (#14) is DENIED, and this matter is REMANDED for the
purposes stated in the Memorandum and Recommendation.
Case 1:20-cv-00388-MOC-WCM Document 18 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:20-cv-00388-MOC-WCM Document 18 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?