CARPENTER v. ASTRUE, 5:11-CV-261-D. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20120702909
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jun. 29, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 29, 2012
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III, Chief District Judge. On May 30, 2012, Magistrate Judge Webb issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 46]. In the M&R, Judge Webb recommended that plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, that defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, and that the action be remanded to the Commissioner. M&R [D.E. 46] 7. Neither party objected to the M&R. "The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determin
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III, Chief District Judge. On May 30, 2012, Magistrate Judge Webb issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 46]. In the M&R, Judge Webb recommended that plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, that defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, and that the action be remanded to the Commissioner. M&R [D.E. 46] 7. Neither party objected to the M&R. "The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determina..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER, III, Chief District Judge.
On May 30, 2012, Magistrate Judge Webb issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 46]. In the M&R, Judge Webb recommended that plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, that defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, and that the action be remanded to the Commissioner. M&R [D.E. 46] 7. Neither party objected to the M&R.
"The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (alteration in original) (emphasis and quotation omitted). Absent a timely 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." Id. (quotation omitted).
The court has reviewed the M&R and the record. The court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the court adopts the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 46]. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 39] is GRANTED, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 42] is DENIED, and the action is REMANDED to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
