Newcomb v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION that Plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice; denying 15 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; and adopting 18 Memorandum and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 7/2/12. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(smj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:11CV23-RLV
ELIZABETH WARD NEWCOMB

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Memorandum & Opinion

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendant’s “Motion for Summary
Judgment” (Doc. 15) and pro se Plaintiff’s most recent letter to the Court. (Doc. 12.)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), United States Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler
was designated to consider and recommend disposition in the aforesaid motion. In an opinion
filed March 26, 2012, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff Newcomb’s “Complaint”
(Doc. 1) be dismissed without prejudice, and Defendant’s “Motion for Summary Judgment” be
denied as moot. (Doc. 18.) The time for filing objections has since passed, 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1)(c), and it is difficult to ascertain the Plaintiff’s “specific” objection for purposes of a
de novo review.
After a careful review of the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation, the
Court finds that his findings of fact are supported by the record and his conclusions of law are
consistent with and well supported by current case law. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315-16 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[I]n the absence of a timely filed
objection, 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.”);

Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (holding that only a careful review is
required in considering memorandum and recommendation absent specific objections.) Since
there is no coherent objection, the Court hereby accepts the Memorandum & Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge and adopts it as the final decision of this Court for all purposes relating
to this case.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby
DENIED.

Signed: July 2, 2012

Page 2 of 2