Sechrist v. Kijakazi

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION No. 4:20-CV-175-BO VICTORIA M. SECHRIST, on behalf of ) V.S., a minor child, ) Plaintiff, ) V. ORDER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. ) This matter is before the Court on the Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). [DE 6]. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the M&R. BACKGROUND On November 10, 2020, Magistrate Judge Swank entered an M&R recommending that the Court issue an order requiring plaintiff to show cause, if any, why she should not be removed from the case and a guardian ad litem appointed to represent the interests of the minor child in this matter. Magistrate Judge Swank further recommended that, in the event the Court finds elther that plaintiff does not meet the standard described in 20 C.F.R. § 416.1505 or that other reasons exist for plaintiff's removal, that the Court appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of the minor pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). /d. No objections to the M&R were filed within the time allowed.

DISCUSSION “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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (emphasis, alteration, and quotation omitted); see 28 U.S.C. 636(b). Absent timely 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, 416 F.3d at 315 (quotation omitted).

Here, despite being warned as to the consequences, plaintiff made no objection to the M&R. Having considered the M&R and record, the Court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS Judge Swank’s M&R in its entirety. [DE 6]. Accordingly, plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, if any, why she should not be removed from the case and a guardian ad litem appointed to represent the interests of the minor child in this matter. Plaintiff shall have until February 1, 2021 to file such notice with the Court.

SO ORDERED, this ¢ day of January, 2021.

.

TERRENCE W. BOYLE / UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE