Fletcher v. Colvin

Filing 16

ORDER granting 11 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 13 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; affirming 15 Memorandum and Recommendations.. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 7/13/17. (ssh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:16-cv-725-RJC-DSC
SUSAN L. FLETCHER,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings and Supporting Memorandum, (Doc. Nos. 11, 12); Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Supporting Memorandum (Doc. Nos. 13, 14); and the Magistrate Judge’s
Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 15), recommending that this Court
grant Plaintiff’s Motion, deny Defendant’s Motion, and reverse and remand the Commissioner’s
decision. The parties have not filed objections to the M&R, and the time for doing so has
expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
I.

BACKGROUND
Neither party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s statement of the factual and

procedural background of this case. Therefore, the Court adopts the facts as set forth in the
M&R.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters, including motions to dismiss, to a

magistrate judge for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) & (B). The Federal Magistrate Act provides that a district court “shall make a de

novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
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). De novo review is also not required “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. Similarly, when no objection is filed, “a district court need
not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on
the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, advisory committee
note).
III.

DISCUSSION
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court judge shall

make a de novo determination of any portion of an M&R to which specific written objection has
been made. A party’s failure to make timely objection is accepted as an agreement with the
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). No
objection to the M&R having been filed, and the time for doing so having passed, the parties
have waived their right to de novo review of any issue covered in the M&R.
Furthermore, the Social Security Act provides that the “findings of the Commissioner of
Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.” 42
U.S.C. § 405(g). Judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision regarding disability
benefits is limited to determining “whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence
and whether the correct law was applied.” Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2002).

The reviewing court should not “undertake to re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility
determinations, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the Secretary.” Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d
171, 176 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996)).
This Court has conducted a full and careful review of the M&R and other documents of
record and, having done so, finds that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is, in all
respects, in accordance with the law and should be approved. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS
the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its own.
IV.

CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 15), is ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. No. 11), is GRANTED.
The Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED
for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Order and the M&R.
3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 13), is DENIED; and
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

Signed: July 12, 2017