Bentley v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 10

ORDER: The Magistrate Judge's 9 Memorandum and Recommendation M&R is ADOPTED; Defendant's 8 Motion to Affirm the Commissioner's Decision is GRANTED; Plaintiff's 7 Social Security Appeal is DENIED; the Commissioner's Decision is AFFIRMED; and the Clerk is directed to close this matter in accordance with this Order. Signed by District Judge Kenneth D. Bell on 3/10/2025. (mek)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-00077-KDB-DCK
FRANCES BENTLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Social Security Appeal, (Doc. No. 7),
Defendant’s Motion to Affirm the Commissioner’s Decision, (Doc. No. 8), and the Magistrate
Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) (Doc. No. 9), recommending that
Plaintiff’s motion be denied, Defendant’s motion be granted, and the Commissioner’s decision be
affirmed. The parties have not filed an objection to the M&R, and the time for doing so has expired.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
I.

BACKGROUND

No 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. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985) (explaining the Court is not required to review, under a de
novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no
objections have been raised).

1
Case 5:24-cv-00077-KDB-DCK

Document 10

Filed 03/10/25

Page 1 of 3

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court may designate a magistrate judge to “submit to a judge of the court
proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition” of dispositive pretrial matters.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may object to the magistrate judge's proposed findings and
recommendations, and the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). However, “in 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” and need not give any explanation for adopting the
M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). Also, the Court does not perform a de novo review where
a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific
error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). After reviewing the record, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter
with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
III.

DISCUSSION

Having carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's M&R, the relevant portions of the record
and applicable legal authority, this Court is satisfied that there is no clear error as to the M&R, to
which no objection was made. Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. Accordingly, this Court will adopt the
findings and recommendations set forth in the M&R as its own solely for the purpose of deciding
the motions before it.

2
Case 5:24-cv-00077-KDB-DCK

Document 10

Filed 03/10/25

Page 2 of 3

NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R (Doc. No. 9) is ADOPTED;
2. Defendant’s Motion to Affirm the Commissioner’s Decision (Doc. No. 8) is
GRANTED;
3. Plaintiff’s Social Security Appeal (Doc. No. 7) is DENIED;
4. The Commissioner’s Decision is AFFIRMED; and
5. The Clerk is directed to close this matter in accordance with this Order.
SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
Signed: March 10, 2025

3
Case 5:24-cv-00077-KDB-DCK

Document 10

Filed 03/10/25

Page 3 of 3