Magyar v. Dudek

E.D. North Carolina

Magyar v. Dudek

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina

DecidedMarch 19, 2025

Docket4:23-cv-00182

StatusUnknown

This text of Magyar v. Dudek (Magyar v. Dudek) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Magyar v. Dudek, (E.D.N.C. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION Case No. 4:23-CV-00182-M-RJ JOHN MAGYAR, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER LELAND C. DUDEK, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) Defendant. es This matter comes before the court on a memorandum and recommendation (the “Recommendation”), entered in this case by Magistrate Judge Brian S. Meyers on February 11, 2025 [DE 12]. In the Recommendation, Judge Meyers recommended that the court deny Plaintiffs brief [DE 9], grant Defendant’s brief [DE 10] and uphold the final decision of Defendant. DE 12 at 1. The Recommendation, including instructions and a deadline for filing objections, was served on the parties on February 11. See id. at 14-15. Neither party objected to the Recommendation. See Docket Entries dated February 11, 2025, to present. A magistrate judge’s recommendation carries no presumptive weight. See United States ex rel. Wheeler v. Acadia Healthcare Co., Inc., 127 ¥ 4th 472, 486 (4th Cir. 2025). The court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the . . . recommendation|[ ] . . . receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “The Federal Magistrates Act only requires district courts to ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’” Osmon v. United States, 66 F.4th 144, 146 (4th Cir. 2023) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)). And “a party’s objection to a magistrate judge’s report [must] be specific and particularized.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007). Absent a specific and timely objection, the court reviews only for “clear error” and need not give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Upon careful review of the Recommendation and the record presented, and finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS the Recommendation of Judge Meyers [DE 12] as its own. For the reasons stated therein, Plaintiff's brief [DE 9] is DENIED, Defendant’s brief [DE 10] is GRANTED, and the final decision of Defendant is UPHELD.

SO ORDERED this A sa of March, 2025.

CA. EV esa RICHARD E. MYERS II CIIIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION Case No. 4:23-CV-00182-M-RJ JOHN MAGYAR, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER LELAND C. DUDEK, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) Defendant. es This matter comes before the court on a memorandum and recommendation (the “Recommendation”), entered in this case by Magistrate Judge Brian S. Meyers on February 11, 2025 [DE 12]. In the Recommendation, Judge Meyers recommended that the court deny Plaintiffs brief [DE 9], grant Defendant’s brief [DE 10] and uphold the final decision of Defendant. DE 12 at 1. The Recommendation, including instructions and a deadline for filing objections, was served on the parties on February 11. See id. at 14-15. Neither party objected to the Recommendation. See Docket Entries dated February 11, 2025, to present. A magistrate judge’s recommendation carries no presumptive weight. See United States ex rel. Wheeler v. Acadia Healthcare Co., Inc., 127 ¥ 4th 472, 486 (4th Cir. 2025). The court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the . . . recommendation|[ ] . . . receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “The Federal Magistrates Act only requires district courts to ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’” Osmon v. United States, 66 F.4th 144, 146 (4th Cir. 2023) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)). And “a party’s objection to a magistrate judge’s report [must] be specific and particularized.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007). Absent a specific and timely objection, the court reviews only for “clear error” and need not give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Upon careful review of the Recommendation and the record presented, and finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS the Recommendation of Judge Meyers [DE 12] as its own. For the reasons stated therein, Plaintiff's brief [DE 9] is DENIED, Defendant’s brief [DE 10] is GRANTED, and the final decision of Defendant is UPHELD.

SO ORDERED this A sa of March, 2025.

CA. EV esa RICHARD E. MYERS II CIIIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Magyar v. Dudek, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magyar-v-dudek-nced-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack