Stefanie Pickard v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:25-CV-00121-MEO-WCM STEFANIE PICKARD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. ) ) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Appeal from the denial of Social Security Disability Benefits by Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) (Doc. No. 5), the Commissioner’s Response (Doc. No. 8), Plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. No. 9), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) (Doc. No. 10) recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. The parties have not filed objections to the M&R, and the time for doing so has expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

I. BACKGROUND No party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s statement of the factual and procedural background of this case. Therefore, the Court adopts the facts as set forth in the M&R. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters to a magistrate judge for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition” of such matters. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Any party may object to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations, and the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, “in 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’” and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983). After reviewing the record, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 USS.C. § 636(b)(1).

Ii. DISCUSSION Having carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s M&R, the relevant portions of the record, and applicable legal authority, this Court is satisfied that there is no clear error as to the M&R, to which no objection was made. Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. Accordingly, this Court will adopt the findings and recommendations set forth in the M&R as its own solely for the purpose of deciding the motions before it.

IV. CONCLUSION IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 10), is ADOPTED; 2. The Commissioner’s Decision is AFFIRMED; and 3. The Clerk is directed to close this matter in accordance with this Order.

SO ORDERED.

Matthew E. Orso Wy United States District Judge ey