United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Eastern Division
C. FOX Senior United States District Judge
the court are the following:
(1) the parties' cross Motions for Judgment on the
Pleadings [DE-16, -19], pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure;
(2) the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R")
[DE-22] of United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones,
(3) Defendant's Objection [DE-23] to the Magistrate
Judge's M&R and Plaintiffs Response [DE-24].
issues have been fully briefed, and the matter is now ripe
for ruling. For the reasons addressed below, this court
ADOPTS the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge, Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
[DE-16] is ALLOWED, Defendant's Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings [DE-19] is DENIED, and this case is REMANDED to
the Commissioner for further proceedings.
The Magistrate Judge's M&R
Standard of Review
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). This court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the recommendation to
which specific objections are made, and the court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). 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." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Ace.
Ins. Co. , 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
March 2, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a M&R, in
which he recommended that Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings [DE-16] be ALLOWED, Defendant's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings [DE-19] be DENIED, and this case be
REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The
Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and
requirements for filing objections to the M&R and the
consequences if they failed to do so. On March 16, 2017,
Defendant filed an Objection [DE-23] to the Magistrate
Judge's M&R. Plaintiff filed a Response [DE-24J on
March 23, 2017.
Defendant argues that the Magistrate Judge erred by
recommending that the case be remanded.
argues that the Magistrate Judge erred by recommending that
the case be remanded to allow the Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ") to explain why he did not credit Plaintiffs
allegations that she required the use of her
nebulizer every four hours and it takes twenty
minutes to recover from each treatment. See
Objection [DE-23] at 3-7. Defendant further argues that the
Magistrate Judge's conclusion was error because the ALJ
gave sufficient reasons for not crediting Plaintiffs
allegations. Id. at 3. Finally, Defendant argues
that her explanation was not ...