Buford v. Astrue

Filing 18

FINAL ORDER adopting in full the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in 16 Report and Recommendation; denying plaintiff's 10 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting defendant's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment; affirming the final decision of the Commissioner. Signed by District Judge Jerome B. Friedman and filed on 3/30/11. (mwin, )

-DEM Buford v. Astrue

Doc. 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Newport News Division

MAR 3 0 2011

GWENDOLYN NICOLE BUFORD,

v.

Platatiff'

Civil Action No. 4:10cv49

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Administration,

Commissioner of the Social Security

Defendant.

FINAL ORDER

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B), Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, and Rule 72 of the Local Civil Rules, this court referred this matter to United
States Magistrate Judge Tommy E. Miller by Order dated July 12,2010. Magistrate Judge
Tommy Miller thereafter set a briefing schedule for motions for summary judgment. After the

cross-motions for summary judgment were ripe for review, the case was reassigned to United
States Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller. On February 1,2011, Magistrate Judge Douglas
Miller filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R")- The R&R recommends that this court
affirm the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. By copy of the R&R, each party was expressly advised of the right to file written

objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations within fourteen (14) days
from the date the R&R was mailed. The parties were further advised that the district judge

would make de noyo determinations as to all matters to which timely objections were filed. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). This court has not, however, received written

Dockets.Justia.com

objections or any other responses or comments to the R&R from either party, and the time for
filing such objections has clearly expired.

Although this court is obligated to review, de noyo, all portions of the R&R to which

objections are filed, "the Court is not required to review the factual or legal conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are addressed." Nnrth Jefferson Square Assocs , I-P. v- Virginia Honsinp Dev. Authority, 94 F. Supp. 2d 709,713 (E.D. Va. 2000); see Thnmasv.Am. 474 U.S. 140,149 (1985) (rejecting the

petitioner's claim that, in the absence of objections to the R&R, "[a] district judge must still
review the magistrate's report under some lesser standard").

Although it is under no obligation to do so, this court has reviewed the R&R filed herein,

and the court hereby ADOPTS in full the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the
R&R. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and defendant's
motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The final decision of the Commissioner is
therefore AFFIRMED.

The Clerk is REQUESTED to send copies of this Final Order to all counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Norfolk, Virginia

Jerome B. FriŤ

March ?P ,2011