Derricott v. United States, No. 8:2014cv03234 - Document 25 (D. Md. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiff 8/4/15). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 8/4/2015. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Derricott v. United States Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : DENNIS DERRICOTT, SR. : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 14-3234 : NORA KOCH, et al. : MEMORANDUM OPINION This case DiGirolamo for recommendation was referred pretrial for to Magistrate management disposition. On and July Judge a 20, Thomas report 2015, and Judge DiGirolamo filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the United States be substituted as the party defendant, and that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. On July 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Objection” accompanied by exhibits. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, a district judge may designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings and report proposed findings of fact and recommendations for action on a dispositive motion. Thereafter, A party who is aggrieved by a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation as to a dispositive motion must file “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” within fourteen days. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). The district judge must then “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been Dockets.Justia.com properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). But, the Court “need only conduct a de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which objection is made.” Chavis v. Smith, 834 F.Supp. 153, 154 (D.Md.1993). As to those portions of the report for which there is no objection, the district court “must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315–16 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee note), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1091, 126 S.Ct. 1033, 163 L.Ed.2d 855 (2006). Baltimore Line Handling Co. v. Brophy, 771 F.Supp.2d 531, 534-35 (D.Md. 2011). Magistrate Judge DiGirolamo did not address the merits of Plaintiff’s claim, recommending instead that the complaint be dismissed both because it is barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Social Security Act, and because Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Plaintiff’s objection does not even attempt to challenge those reasons for dismissing the complaint. merits of Instead, Plaintiff appears to be challenging the the Administration. actions taken by the Social Security As explained by Judge DiGirolamo, this court cannot reach the merits of those actions in the instant case. The court has reviewed the record and finds that the proposed 2 disposition is correct. Accordingly, the court will overrule Plaintiff’s objections and adopt the Report and Recommendation, by separate order. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
