Mark S. v. Berryhill, 7:17cv00312. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. Virginia
Number: infdco20180918g83
Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL F. URBANSKI , Chief District Judge . For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion entered this date, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14) is DENIED , the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 21) is ADOPTED in its entirety; plaintiffs objections (ECF No. 22) are OVERRULED ; the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED ; and this matter is hereby DISMIS
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL F. URBANSKI , Chief District Judge . For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion entered this date, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14) is DENIED , the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 21) is ADOPTED in its entirety; plaintiffs objections (ECF No. 22) are OVERRULED ; the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED ; and this matter is hereby DISMISS..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL F. URBANSKI, Chief District Judge.
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion entered this date, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14) is DENIED, the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 21) is ADOPTED in its entirety; plaintiffs objections (ECF No. 22) are OVERRULED; the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED; and this matter is hereby DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the active docket of the court.
It is SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
