Filed: Mar. 30, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 30, 2016
Summary: ORDER RICHARD L. VOORHEES , District Judge . THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff Libby D. Myers' Objection to the Memorandum and Recommendation (the "M&R") of Judge David Keesler (hereinafter, the "Objection"). [Doc. No. 21]. In his M&R, Judge Keesler recommends that this Court deny the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 12), grant the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 15), and affirm the Commissioner of Social Security's decision to deny Plaintiff'
Summary: ORDER RICHARD L. VOORHEES , District Judge . THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff Libby D. Myers' Objection to the Memorandum and Recommendation (the "M&R") of Judge David Keesler (hereinafter, the "Objection"). [Doc. No. 21]. In his M&R, Judge Keesler recommends that this Court deny the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 12), grant the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 15), and affirm the Commissioner of Social Security's decision to deny Plaintiff's..
More
ORDER
RICHARD L. VOORHEES, District Judge.
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff Libby D. Myers' Objection to the Memorandum and Recommendation (the "M&R") of Judge David Keesler (hereinafter, the "Objection"). [Doc. No. 21]. In his M&R, Judge Keesler recommends that this Court deny the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 12), grant the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 15), and affirm the Commissioner of Social Security's decision to deny Plaintiff's claim for disability benefits. See [Doc. No. 20]. The Defendant has opposed the Plaintiff's Objection (Doc. No. 22), and Plaintiff has filed a sur-reply in support of her Objection (Doc. No. 23). This matter is now ripe for disposition.
The Federal Magistrate Act provides that a court may "designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings . . . and to submit . . . proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition [of motions for summary judgment.]" 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). "[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). "By contrast, 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.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Note).
After a careful review of the record in this case, the parties' briefs, and the M&R, the Court finds that Judge Keesler's M&R is supported by the record and is consistent with and supported by law. Plaintiff's Objection has not persuaded this Court that an error has been committed under any relevant standard of review.1 Accordingly, the Court finds no error requiring remand.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED THAT
(1) The Plaintiff's Objection to the M&R (Doc. No. 21) is OVERRULED;
(2) The Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. No. 20) is hereby ADOPTED;
(3) The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 12) is DENIED;
(4) The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 15) is GRANTED;
(5) The final decision of the Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED; and
(6) The Clerk shall administratively terminate this case following entry of judgment.
SO ORDERED.
