Gentry v. Berryhill, 5:17-cv-0502-MHH. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20180724492
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 23, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA , District Judge . Mr. Gentry filed this disability case on March 30, 2017. (Doc. 1). On June 14, 2018, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he recommended that the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Mr. Gentry's disability claim. (Doc. 10). The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file objections within 14 days. (Doc. 10, pp. 22-23). To date, no party has filed objections to the magistrate judge's report
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA , District Judge . Mr. Gentry filed this disability case on March 30, 2017. (Doc. 1). On June 14, 2018, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he recommended that the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Mr. Gentry's disability claim. (Doc. 10). The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file objections within 14 days. (Doc. 10, pp. 22-23). To date, no party has filed objections to the magistrate judge's report a..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA, District Judge.
Mr. Gentry filed this disability case on March 30, 2017. (Doc. 1). On June 14, 2018, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he recommended that the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Mr. Gentry's disability claim. (Doc. 10). The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file objections within 14 days. (Doc. 10, pp. 22-23). 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).1 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 his recommendation.
FootNotes
1. When a party objects to a report in which a magistrate judge recommends dismissal of the action, a district court must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B)-(C).
Source: Leagle
