Posey v. Saul, CIV-18-1141-D. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Number: infdco20190806d72
Visitors: 28
Filed: Aug. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 05, 2019
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 20], issued by United States Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Judge Jones finds that the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income should be affirmed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, has not filed a
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 20], issued by United States Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Judge Jones finds that the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income should be affirmed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, has not filed a ..
More
ORDER
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 20], issued by United States Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Judge Jones finds that the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income should be affirmed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, has not filed a timely objection nor requested additional time to object. Upon consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff has waived further judicial review.1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 20] is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. A separate judgment shall be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996).
Source: Leagle
