Summary
remanding for failure to incorporate special technique into decision
Summary of this case from Bartz v. ColvinOpinion
No. 7:11-CV-53-D
02-28-2012
JAMES A. STURDIVANT, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER
On February 1,2012, Magistrate Judge Gates issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 37]. In the M&R, Judge Gates recommended that the court grant James A. Sturdivant's ("Sturdivant" or "plaintiff") motion for judgment on the pleadings, deny Michael J. Astrue's ("Commissioner" or "defendant") motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remand the action to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the M&R. No party objected to the M&R.
"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) (alteration in original) (emphasis and quotation omitted). Absent a 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." Id. (quotation omitted).
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. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 32] is GRANTED, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 34] is DENIED, and the action is REMANDED to the Commissioner for proceedings as set forth in the M&R.
_______________
JAMES C. DEVER III
Chief United States District Judge