James v. Saul ( 2019 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION BP oe No. 5:18-CV-503-D oe QUINCY JAMES, y : BO Plains, ) v. □□ ORDER ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, ) □ . Defendant. . On November 15, 2019, Magistrate judge Gates “issued a Memorandum and Recommendation (““M&R”) [D.E. 23] and recommended that the cout grant plaintiff's motion □□□ judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 18], deny defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 20], and remand the action to the Commissioner.’ Neither _ objected to the M&R. Cf. [D.E. 23]. □□ “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) (emphasis, alteration, and quotation omitted); see 28 § 636(t. Absent a timely objection, “a district court need not conducta denovo rice but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept ie cameras Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315 (quotation omitted). ~ 1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the court substitutes Andrew M. Saul for Nancy A. Berryhill as Commissioner of Social Security. See Fed.-R. Civ. P. 25(d). The court has reviewed the M&R, the record, and the briefs ‘The court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the court adopts the conclusions inthe M&R (DE.23) In sum, the court GRANTS plaintiff's motion for judoment on the pleadings [D.E. 18], DENIES defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E.20}, and REMANDS the action to the Commissioner under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). . . : SO ORDERED. This _7_day of December 2019. Be . United States.District Judge 2 7 ae