Smith v. Berryhill, 5:16CV177-GCM-DCK. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20180314d66
Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRAHAM C. MULLEN , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate David C. Keesler, filed February 7, 2018. (Doc. No. 20). The parties were advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C), written objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service of the memorandum. It appears to the Court that the parties have not filed any such objections. After an independent and thoroug
Summary: ORDER GRAHAM C. MULLEN , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate David C. Keesler, filed February 7, 2018. (Doc. No. 20). The parties were advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C), written objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service of the memorandum. It appears to the Court that the parties have not filed any such objections. After an independent and thorough..
More
ORDER
GRAHAM C. MULLEN, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate David C. Keesler, filed February 7, 2018. (Doc. No. 20). The parties were advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), written objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service of the memorandum. It appears to the Court that the parties have not filed any such objections.
After an independent and thorough review of the magistrate's memorandum, the Court concludes that there is no clear error on the face of the record and that the recommendation to grant Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to the extent Plaintiff moves to remand, deny Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, vacate the Commissioner's determination, and remand for further consideration is correct and in accordance with law. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate are accepted, Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED, and Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED. The Commissioner's determination is vacated and this matter is hereby REMANDED for further consideration.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation of the magistrate is hereby AFFIRMED.
Source: Leagle
