Hayden v. Berryhill, 5:17-cv-00881-MHH. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20190312659
Visitors: 20
Filed: Mar. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 11, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA , District Judge . The magistrate judge to whom this case initially was assigned entered a report in which she recommended that the Court reverse and remand the Commissioner's decision denying Mr. Hayden's disability claim. (Doc. 11, p. 7). The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file objections within 14 days. (Doc. 11, pp. 7-8). To date, no party has filed objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. A dist
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA , District Judge . The magistrate judge to whom this case initially was assigned entered a report in which she recommended that the Court reverse and remand the Commissioner's decision denying Mr. Hayden's disability claim. (Doc. 11, p. 7). The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file objections within 14 days. (Doc. 11, pp. 7-8). To date, no party has filed objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. A distr..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA, District Judge.
The magistrate judge to whom this case initially was assigned entered a report in which she recommended that the Court reverse and remand the Commissioner's decision denying Mr. Hayden's disability claim. (Doc. 11, p. 7). The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file objections within 14 days. (Doc. 11, pp. 7-8). To date, no party has filed objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
A district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 (11th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). The Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judge's description of the relevant facts. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge's report and accepts her recommendation.
The Court will issue a separate final judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion.
Source: Leagle
