LIGGETT v. COLVIN, 2:12-CV-295-WKW. (2013)
Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20130813688
Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 12, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 12, 2013
Summary: ORDER W. KEITH WATKINS, Chief District Judge. On July 16, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 30) regarding Plaintiff's action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). Plaintiff timely objected. (Doc. # 33.) The court reviews de novo the portion of the Recommendation to which the objection applies. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Plaintiff's objection, while not a model of clarity, essentially restates his arguments before the Magistrate Judge, namel
Summary: ORDER W. KEITH WATKINS, Chief District Judge. On July 16, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 30) regarding Plaintiff's action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). Plaintiff timely objected. (Doc. # 33.) The court reviews de novo the portion of the Recommendation to which the objection applies. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Plaintiff's objection, while not a model of clarity, essentially restates his arguments before the Magistrate Judge, namely..
More
ORDER
W. KEITH WATKINS, Chief District Judge.
On July 16, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 30) regarding Plaintiff's action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3). Plaintiff timely objected. (Doc. # 33.) The court reviews de novo the portion of the Recommendation to which the objection applies. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff's objection, while not a model of clarity, essentially restates his arguments before the Magistrate Judge, namely that clerical errors and omissions prevented Plaintiff from receiving a fair hearing. Plaintiff's objections are without merit, for reasons ably articulated by the Magistrate Judge. To the extent Plaintiff has identified errors in his record, they are harmless and immaterial. They do not warrant reversing the decision of the Magistrate Judge or the Administrative Law Judge or remanding the case to the Commissioner of Social Security on the basis of new evidence.
Accordingly, after de novo review of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 30) is ADOPTED;
2. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.
An appropriate judgment will follow.
Source: Leagle
