Stanley v. Colvin, 1:14CV986. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20160205b58
Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 04, 2016
Summary: ORDER LORETTA C. BIGGS , District Judge . On January 7, 2016, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b), the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed and served on the parties in this action (ECF Nos. 14, 15), and a copy was given to the Court. Within the time limitation set forth in the statute, counsel for Plaintiff objected to the Recommendation. (ECF No. 16.) The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Objection and Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Objection and has made a
Summary: ORDER LORETTA C. BIGGS , District Judge . On January 7, 2016, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b), the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed and served on the parties in this action (ECF Nos. 14, 15), and a copy was given to the Court. Within the time limitation set forth in the statute, counsel for Plaintiff objected to the Recommendation. (ECF No. 16.) The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Objection and Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Objection and has made a ..
More
ORDER
LORETTA C. BIGGS, District Judge.
On January 7, 2016, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed and served on the parties in this action (ECF Nos. 14, 15), and a copy was given to the Court.
Within the time limitation set forth in the statute, counsel for Plaintiff objected to the Recommendation. (ECF No. 16.)
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Objection and Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Objection and has made a de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10) is DENIED, that the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED, that the Commissioner's decision finding no disability is AFFIRMED, and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order.
Source: Leagle
