govinfo:USCOURTS-ncwd-1_24-cv-00276-1

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. ) 

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 

Passage view · GavelSight