Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:25-CV-00121-MEO-WCM
STEFANIE PICKARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Appeal from the denial of Social
Security Disability Benefits by Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
(Doc. No. 5), the Commissioner’s Response (Doc. No. 8), Plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. No. 9), and the
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) (Doc. No. 10) recommending
that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. The parties have not filed objections to the M&R,
and the time for doing so has expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
I. BACKGROUND
No party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s statement of the factual and procedural
background of this case. Therefore, the Court adopts the facts as set forth in the M&R.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters to a magistrate judge for “proposed
findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition” of such matters. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Any party may object to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations, and the
court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However,
Case 3:25-cv-00121-MEO-WCM Document 11 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 2

2
“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’” and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. Diamond
v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee’s note); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983). After
reviewing the record, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
III. DISCUSSION
Having carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s M&R, the relevant portions of the
record, and applicable legal authority, this Court is satisfied that there is no clear error as to the
M&R, to which no objection was made. Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. Accordingly, this Court will
adopt the findings and recommendations set forth in the M&R as its own solely for the purpose of
deciding the motions before it.
IV. CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 10), is ADOPTED;
2. The Commissioner’s Decision is AFFIRMED; and
3. The Clerk is directed to close this matter in accordance with this Order.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: April 7, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00121-MEO-WCM Document 11 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 2