STINNETT v. BERRYHILL, 4:16-CV-0252-Y. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
Number: infdco20170419i29
Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 18, 2017
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TERRY R. MEANS , District Judge . On March 31, 2017, the United States magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in this case (doc. 15). The report gave all parties fourteen days thereafter to serve and file with the Court written objections to the magistrate judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation. No written objections have been filed by either party. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 79 F
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TERRY R. MEANS , District Judge . On March 31, 2017, the United States magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in this case (doc. 15). The report gave all parties fourteen days thereafter to serve and file with the Court written objections to the magistrate judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation. No written objections have been filed by either party. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 79 F...
More
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
TERRY R. MEANS, District Judge.
On March 31, 2017, the United States magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in this case (doc. 15). The report gave all parties fourteen days thereafter to serve and file with the Court written objections to the magistrate judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation. No written objections have been filed by either party. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996). As a result, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), de novo review is not required. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error and has found none.
Thus, after consideration of this matter, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge should be and are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that the commissioner of Social Security's decision is REVERSED and REMANDED to the commissioner under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this order.
Source: Leagle
