Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Mason v. Berryhill, 1:16-cv-00148-MR-DLH. (2017)

Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20170621f34 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jun. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 20, 2017
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 9]; the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 10]; and the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 13] regarding the disposition of those motions. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and a specific Order of referral of the District Court, the Honorable Dennis L. Howell, United States Magistrate Judge, was designated to consider these pending mot
More

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 9]; the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 10]; and the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 13] regarding the disposition of those motions.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a specific Order of referral of the District Court, the Honorable Dennis L. Howell, United States Magistrate Judge, was designated to consider these pending motions in the above-captioned action and to submit to this Court a recommendation for the disposition of these motions.

On May 30, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 13] in this case containing proposed conclusions of law in support of a recommendation regarding the motions [Docs. 9 and 10]. The parties were advised that any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation were to be filed in writing within fourteen (14) days of service. The period within which to file objections has expired, and no written objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation have been filed.

After a careful review of the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [Doc. 13], the Court finds that the proposed findings of fact are correct and that the proposed conclusions of law are consistent with current case law. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation that the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 13] is ACCEPTED; the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 9] is DENIED; the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 10] is GRANTED; and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The Clerk shall entered a judgment contemporaneously herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer