Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:24-cv-276-MOC-WCM
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). No objections have been filed within the time allowed.
I. Applicable Standard of Review
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
APRIL SPRINGSTON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
Vs. ) ORDER
)
FRANK BISIGNANO,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
)
Defendant. )
Case 1:24-cv-00276-MOC-WCM Document 9 Filed 06/01/26 Page 1 of 2

2
objection. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Camby, 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.
II. Discussion
After 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 (Doc.
No. 8) is AFFIRMED, the Commissioner’s decision is vacated, and the matter is remanded for
further administrative proceedings.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to terminate Doc. Nos. 5 and 6, which are pending as
motions.
Signed: June 1, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-00276-MOC-WCM Document 9 Filed 06/01/26 Page 2 of 2