From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Colvin

United States District Court Western District of North Carolina Asheville Division
Mar 6, 2015
1:14-cv-00018-MOC-DLH (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2015)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. 1:14-cv-00018-MOC-DLH

03-06-2015

GENEVIEVE L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant.


ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on review of a Memorandum and Recommendation issued in this matter. In the Memorandum and Recommendation, the magistrate judge advised the parties of the right to file objections within 14 days, all in accordance with 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(c). Such period ran March 5, 2015, and no objections have been filed within the time allowed.

The Federal Magistrates Act of 1979, as amended, provides that "a district court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1983). However, "when objections to strictly legal issues are raised and no factual issues are challenged, de novo review of the record may be dispensed with." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Similarly, de novo review is not required by the statute "when a party makes general or conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations." Id. Moreover, the statute does not on its face require any review at all of issues that are not the subject of an objection. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d at 200. Nonetheless, a district judge is responsible for the final determination and outcome of the case, and accordingly the court has conducted a careful review of the magistrate judge's recommendation.

After such careful review, the court determines that the recommendation of the magistrate judge is fully consistent with and supported by current law. Further, the brief factual background and recitation of issues is supported by the applicable pleadings. Based on such determinations, the court will fully affirm the Memorandum and Recommendation and grant relief in accordance therewith.

ORDER

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation (#15) is AFFIRMED, the Commissioner's Motion for Summary judgment is GRANTED, the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED.

The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in accordance with this Order. Signed: March 6, 2015 /s/_________
Max O. Cogburn Jr.
United States District Judge


Summaries of

Williams v. Colvin

United States District Court Western District of North Carolina Asheville Division
Mar 6, 2015
1:14-cv-00018-MOC-DLH (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2015)
Case details for

Williams v. Colvin

Case Details

Full title:Genevieve L. Williams, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Defendant(s).

Court:United States District Court Western District of North Carolina Asheville Division

Date published: Mar 6, 2015

Citations

1:14-cv-00018-MOC-DLH (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2015)

Citing Cases

Stephens v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

While a conclusory, stand-alone “check box” form is not favored, such a form may constitute some evidence of…

Miller v. Saul

Thus, his opinion was not due more than some weight. See Williams v. Colvin, No. 1:14-cv-00018-MOC, 2015 WL…