ROGERS v. COLVIN, 7:12-CV-132-D. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20130530d93
Visitors: 9
Filed: May 29, 2013
Latest Update: May 29, 2013
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III, District Judge. On May 2, 2013, Magistrate Judge Gates issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 25]. In the M&R, Judge Gates recommended that plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 20] be granted, that defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 22] be denied, and that the action be remanded to the Commissioner. Neither party objected to the M&R. "The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determina
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III, District Judge. On May 2, 2013, Magistrate Judge Gates issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 25]. In the M&R, Judge Gates recommended that plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 20] be granted, that defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 22] be denied, and that the action be remanded to the Commissioner. Neither party objected to the M&R. "The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determinat..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER, III, District Judge.
On May 2, 2013, Magistrate Judge Gates issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 25]. In the M&R, Judge Gates recommended that plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 20] be granted, that defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 22] be denied, and that the action be remanded to the Commissioner. 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. 25]. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 20] is GRANTED, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 22] is DENIED, and the action is REMANDED to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
