Filed: Sep. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 04, 2013
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND On September 18, 2012, Plaintiff Shannon Jean Price filed a Pro Se Complaint (docket no. 3), requesting judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's ("Commissioner") decision to deny her application for Title XVI supplemental security income ("SSI") benefits. In the Complaint, Price asks the court to reverse the decision of the Commissioner and order the Commis
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND On September 18, 2012, Plaintiff Shannon Jean Price filed a Pro Se Complaint (docket no. 3), requesting judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's ("Commissioner") decision to deny her application for Title XVI supplemental security income ("SSI") benefits. In the Complaint, Price asks the court to reverse the decision of the Commissioner and order the Commiss..
More
ORDER REGARDING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
On September 18, 2012, Plaintiff Shannon Jean Price filed a Pro Se Complaint (docket no. 3), requesting judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's ("Commissioner") decision to deny her application for Title XVI supplemental security income ("SSI") benefits. In the Complaint, Price asks the court to reverse the decision of the Commissioner and order the Commissioner to provide SSI benefits.
On August 14, 2013, Chief Magistrate Judge Jon S. Scoles filed a Report and Recommendation (docket no. 17) in which he recommended that the court affirm the decision of the Commissioner and dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. No objections to Judge Scoles's Report and Recommendation were filed. The court, therefore, undertakes the necessary review of Judge Scoles's recommendation to affirm the decision of the Commissioner.
II. ANALYSIS
Pursuant to statute, this court's standard of review for a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is as follows:
A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Similarly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides for review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation on dispositive motions and prisoner petitions, where objections are made, as follows:
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
In this case, no objections have been filed and it appears to the court upon review of Judge Scoles's findings and conclusions that there is no ground to reject or modify them. Therefore, the court ACCEPTS Judge Scoles's Report and Recommendation and AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner. The Complaint (docket no. 3) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
