From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Astrue

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
Oct 20, 2010
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:09cv362 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 2010)

Opinion

CIVIL CASE NO. 1:09cv362.

October 20, 2010


ORDER


THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14], the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 25], the Plaintiff's Motion and Supplemental Motion to Receive New and Material Evidence [Docs. 16 22], Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Memorandum of Argument [Doc. 20], and the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 30] regarding the disposition of those motions.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a specific Order of referral of the district court, the Honorable Dennis L. Howell, United States Magistrate Judge, was designated to consider these pending motions in the above-captioned civil action and to submit to this Court a recommendation for the disposition of these motions.

On October 1, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 30] in this case containing proposed conclusions of law in support of a recommendation regarding the motions [Docs. 14, 16, 20, 22 25]. The parties were advised that any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation were to be filed in writing within fourteen (14) days of service. The period within which to file objections has expired, and no written objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation have been filed.

After a careful review of the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [Doc. 30], the Court finds that the proposed conclusions of law are consistent with current case law. The Court hereby corrects a scrivener's error [Doc. 30 at 1] therein identifying the Motion to Strike [Doc. 20] as Plaintiff's when it is Defendant's. With that correction, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation that the Defendant's Motions [Docs. 20 25] be DENIED, that the Plaintiff's Motions [Docs. 14, 16 22] be DENIED, and that the case be REMANDED pursuant to instructions in the Recommendation. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 USC 405(g), this matter is REMANDED in accordance with remand instructions in the Memorandum and Recommandation, and the following are DENIED:

1. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14] 2. Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 25] 3. Plaintiff's Motion and Supplemental Motion to Receive New and Material Evidence [Docs. 16 22] 4. Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Memorandum of Argument [Doc. 20] IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: October 20, 2010


Summaries of

Jones v. Astrue

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
Oct 20, 2010
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:09cv362 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 2010)
Case details for

Jones v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:PAMELA DIANE JONES, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division

Date published: Oct 20, 2010

Citations

CIVIL CASE NO. 1:09cv362 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 2010)

Citing Cases

Roberts v. Astrue

When deficiencies in an analysis are such that they substantially reduce confidence in the result, even if…

Fisher v. Astrue

An Agency acronym for Single Decision Maker, a person with no medical credentials.Jones v. Commissioner of…