From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bridgeman v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Eastern Division
Apr 21, 2008
No. 4:07-CV-81-D(3) (E.D.N.C. Apr. 21, 2008)

Summary

adopting memorandum and recommendation

Summary of this case from Adams v. Colvin

Opinion

No. 4:07-CV-81-D(3).

April 21, 2008


ORDER


On March 14, 2008, Magistrate Judge Webb issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M R"). In that M R, Judge Webb recommended that plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied in part and granted in part, that the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied without prejudice, and that the action be remanded to the Commissioner. Neither 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 Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted, emphasis removed, and alteration in original). 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 record and the briefs. The court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the court accepts the M R. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED without prejudice, and the action is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Bridgeman v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Eastern Division
Apr 21, 2008
No. 4:07-CV-81-D(3) (E.D.N.C. Apr. 21, 2008)

adopting memorandum and recommendation

Summary of this case from Adams v. Colvin

rejecting the government's objection to the M R that an ALJ's failure to consider a state Medicaid decision is the type of error that does not warrant remand.

Summary of this case from Watson v. Astrue

remanding for further consideration where the ALJ mentioned the Medicaid ruling, but dismissed its relevance without further discussion

Summary of this case from Estes v. Berryhill

remanding for further explanation where the ALJ noted the ruling that plaintiff was eligible for Medicaid assistance but gave it no weight on the sole ground that another agency decision is not binding

Summary of this case from Ragin v. Colvin

remanding for further explanation where ALJ mentioned Medicaid ruling, but dismissed its relevance without discussion

Summary of this case from Winston v. Colvin

remanding for further explanation where ALJ mentioned Medicaid ruling, but dismissed its relevance without discussion

Summary of this case from Best v. Colvin

remanding for further explanation where the ALJ noted the ruling that plaintiff was eligible for Medicaid assistance but gave it no weight on the sole ground that another agency decision is not binding

Summary of this case from Whittington v. Colvin

remanding for further explanation where ALJ mentioned Medicaid ruling, but dismissed its relevance without discussion

Summary of this case from Overstreet v. Astrue
Case details for

Bridgeman v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:NELSON BRIDGEMAN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

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

Date published: Apr 21, 2008

Citations

No. 4:07-CV-81-D(3) (E.D.N.C. Apr. 21, 2008)

Citing Cases

Overstreet v. Astrue

The burden of proving that the drug addiction or alcoholism is not material falls on the claimant. Bridgeman…

Woods v. Berryhill

In further support, plaintiff cites a series of cases from the Eastern District of North Carolina, which tend…