From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hair v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
Jul 11, 2011
No. 5:10-CV-309-D (E.D.N.C. Jul. 11, 2011)

Summary

holding "[t]he ALJ's failure to provide an explanation of his handling of the shoulder impairment at step two was error"

Summary of this case from Lynda L. v. Berryhill

Opinion

No. 5:10-CV-309-D.

July 11, 2011


ORDER


On June 16, 2011, Magistrate Judge Gates issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M R"). In that M R, Judge Gates recommended that plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, and defendant's final decision denying the request for benefits be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Memorandum and Recommendation. No party filed objections 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 removed) (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 is GRANTED, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED, and the action is REMANDED to the Commissioner.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hair v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
Jul 11, 2011
No. 5:10-CV-309-D (E.D.N.C. Jul. 11, 2011)

holding "[t]he ALJ's failure to provide an explanation of his handling of the shoulder impairment at step two was error"

Summary of this case from Lynda L. v. Berryhill
Case details for

Hair v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:PAMELA FAYE HAIR, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division

Date published: Jul 11, 2011

Citations

No. 5:10-CV-309-D (E.D.N.C. Jul. 11, 2011)

Citing Cases

Lynda L. v. Berryhill

An ALJ's failure to address a medically determinable impairment that is supported by evidence in the record…