Filed: Mar. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRAHAM C. MULLEN , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court upon cross motions for Summary Judgement filed by Plaintiff, Franklin P. Chapman, Jr., and Defendant, Commissioner of Social Security Carolyn W. Colvin. Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 10) and Memorandum in Support (Doc. No. 11) on March 30, 2015. Defendant filed her Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 14) and Memorandum in Support (Doc. No. 15) on June 25, 2015. On February 29, 2016, Mag
Summary: ORDER GRAHAM C. MULLEN , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court upon cross motions for Summary Judgement filed by Plaintiff, Franklin P. Chapman, Jr., and Defendant, Commissioner of Social Security Carolyn W. Colvin. Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 10) and Memorandum in Support (Doc. No. 11) on March 30, 2015. Defendant filed her Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 14) and Memorandum in Support (Doc. No. 15) on June 25, 2015. On February 29, 2016, Magi..
More
ORDER
GRAHAM C. MULLEN, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon cross motions for Summary Judgement filed by Plaintiff, Franklin P. Chapman, Jr., and Defendant, Commissioner of Social Security Carolyn W. Colvin. Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 10) and Memorandum in Support (Doc. No. 11) on March 30, 2015. Defendant filed her Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 14) and Memorandum in Support (Doc. No. 15) on June 25, 2015. On February 29, 2016, Magistrate Judge David Keesler issued a Memorandum and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff's Motion be denied, Defendant's Motion be denied, and the Commissioner's decision be vacated. (Doc. No. 16) Objections were due on March 17, 2016. For the reasons set forth below, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Memorandum and Recommendation.
The Federal Magistrate Act provides that "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); Canby 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). Here, no party filed an objection to the Memorandum and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has expired.
Accordingly, after a careful review of the record in this case, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact are supported by the record and his conclusions of law are consistent with and supported by current case law. Thus, the Memorandum and Recommendation is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and the Commissioner's decision is VACATED and REMANDED.
SO ORDERED.
