Latimer et al v. US Social Security Administration et al

Filing 8

ORDER affirming 7 Memorandum and Recommendations;granting 2 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction - complaint dismissed as to Defendant US Social Security Admin., remainder of action remanded to state court for disposition. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 8/16/12. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(bsw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:12cv406
CALVIN LATIMER; and SANDRA
LATIMER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
Vs.
US SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________

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.
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);
-1-

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.
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 (#7)
is AFFIRMED, defendant United States’ Motion to Dismiss (#2) is GRANTED, that the
Complaint as against the named defendant “US Social Security Administration” is
DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the remainder of the action is
REMANDED to state court for disposition.

Signed: August 16, 2012

-2-