Eden v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:24CV548-GCM-WCM

MATTHEW EDEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________)

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate W. Carleton Metcalf, filed August 13, 2025. (Doc. No. 10). The parties were advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), written objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service of the memorandum. It appears to the Court that the parties have not filed any such objections. After an independent and thorough review of the magistrate's memorandum, the Court concludes that there is no clear error on the face of the record and that the recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and affirm the Commissioner’s determination is correct and in accordance with law. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate are accepted, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED. The Commissioner’s determination is affirmed. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation of the magistrate is hereby AFFIRMED.

Signed: September 4, 2025 Lbal Graham C. Mullen United States District Judge “ee