ANDERSON v. ASTRUEI, 4:12CV0092 JMM. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20120619752
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 18, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 18, 2012
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MOODY, District Judge. On May 10, 2012, Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney submitted to the Court Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition in which he stated that Plaintiff's complaint seeking to overturn the Social Security Administration's denial of his request for Social Security Disability should be dismissed as untimely. Objections to this recommendation were due by May 29, 2012. Plaintiff is represented by Counsel. Plaintiff's pro se objections to the Magistrate Ju
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MOODY, District Judge. On May 10, 2012, Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney submitted to the Court Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition in which he stated that Plaintiff's complaint seeking to overturn the Social Security Administration's denial of his request for Social Security Disability should be dismissed as untimely. Objections to this recommendation were due by May 29, 2012. Plaintiff is represented by Counsel. Plaintiff's pro se objections to the Magistrate Jud..
More
ORDER
JAMES M. MOODY, District Judge.
On May 10, 2012, Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney submitted to the Court Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition in which he stated that Plaintiff's complaint seeking to overturn the Social Security Administration's denial of his request for Social Security Disability should be dismissed as untimely. Objections to this recommendation were due by May 29, 2012. Plaintiff is represented by Counsel.
Plaintiff's pro se objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation arrived in the Court's chambers on June 1, 2012. These letter objections were forwarded to the Clerk of the Court to be filed as a matter of record on June 4, 2012. On that same date, before the objections were brought to the attention of the Court and before they were filed into the record, the Court issued an Order and Judgment adopting the Magistrate Judge's report as its own, and stated in that Order that no objections had been filed. The Clerk of the Court filed the objections on June 5, 2012.
The Court has now reviewed those objections and finds them to be without merit. The June 4, 2012 Order adopting the proposed findings and recommendations is changed to state that pro se objections have been filed; however, the Court's decision to adopt the findings and recommendations dismissing the complaint as untimely remains the same. The complaint is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
