Filed: Mar. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT ELIZABETH K. DILLON , District Judge . In this social security case, plaintiff Jacob G., on behalf of G.G., a minor child, and defendant Nancy Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the commissioner), both move for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), the court referred the motions to U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou for a report and recommendation (R&R). On February 26
Summary: ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT ELIZABETH K. DILLON , District Judge . In this social security case, plaintiff Jacob G., on behalf of G.G., a minor child, and defendant Nancy Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the commissioner), both move for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), the court referred the motions to U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou for a report and recommendation (R&R). On February 26,..
More
ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT
ELIZABETH K. DILLON, District Judge.
In this social security case, plaintiff Jacob G., on behalf of G.G., a minor child, and defendant Nancy Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the commissioner), both move for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the court referred the motions to U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou for a report and recommendation (R&R).
On February 26, 2019, the magistrate judge issued his R&R, recommending that the court grant the defendant's motion, deny the Commissioner's motion, and remand the case for further administrative proceedings. (Dkt. No. 25 at 1.) The magistrate judge also advised the parties of their right under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) to file written objections to his proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days of service of the R&R. (Id. at 25.)
The deadline to object to the R&R has passed, and no party has filed an objection. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed 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.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Upon reviewing the record here, the court is satisfied that there is no clear error. Accordingly, it hereby ORDERS as follows:
1. The R&R (Dkt. No. 25) is ADOPTED;
2. Jacob G.'s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 15) is GRANTED;
3. The Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 20) is DENIED;
4. The case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and
5. The case is STRUCK from the court's active docket.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to all counsel of record.
