From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hancock v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Jul 9, 2012
1:09CV87 (M.D.N.C. Jul. 9, 2012)

Opinion

1:09CV87

07-09-2012

SHEILA G. HANCOCK, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant(s).


ORDER

The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed with the court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and, on April 16, 2012, was served on the parties in this action. Plaintiff filed objections to the Recommendation (Doc. 31), and the Defendant responded (Doc. 32).

The court has carefully reviewed the portions of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objection was made and has made a de novo determination, which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge's report. The court therefore adopts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision finding no disability is AFFIRMED, Plaintiff's motion to reverse the decision of the Commissioner (Doc. 7) is DENIED, Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 10) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order.

Thomas D. Schroeder

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Hancock v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Jul 9, 2012
1:09CV87 (M.D.N.C. Jul. 9, 2012)
Case details for

Hancock v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:SHEILA G. HANCOCK, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Date published: Jul 9, 2012

Citations

1:09CV87 (M.D.N.C. Jul. 9, 2012)

Citing Cases

Harris v. Astrue

Because the plaintiff states that this was a harmless error, this Court will not address this argument in…