TESTAMARK v. BERRYHILL, 3:16cv202. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Virginia
Number: infdco20171012i86
Visitors: 1
Filed: Oct. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 11, 2017
Summary: ORDER ROBERT E. PAYNE , Senior District Judge . Having reviewed the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge entered herein on August 21, 2017 (ECF No. 14), the plaintiff's OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (ECF No. 18), the DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 19), and having considered the record and the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 14) and finding no error therein, it i
Summary: ORDER ROBERT E. PAYNE , Senior District Judge . Having reviewed the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge entered herein on August 21, 2017 (ECF No. 14), the plaintiff's OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (ECF No. 18), the DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 19), and having considered the record and the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 14) and finding no error therein, it is..
More
ORDER
ROBERT E. PAYNE, Senior District Judge.
Having reviewed the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge entered herein on August 21, 2017 (ECF No. 14), the plaintiff's OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (ECF No. 18), the DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 19), and having considered the record and the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 14) and finding no error therein, it is hereby ORDERED that:
(1) The plaintiff's OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (ECF No. 18) are overruled;
(2) The REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 14) is adopted on the basis of the reasoning of the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION;
(3) The plaintiff's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR REMAND (ECF Nos. 7 and 8) is denied;
(4) The DEFENDANT's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket No. 10) is granted; and
(5) The Commissioner's decision is affirmed.
It is further ORDERED that the issues are adequately addressed by the briefs and oral argument would not materially aid the decisional process.
It is so ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
