Filed: Jul. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 16, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dkt. 15) TERRENCE G. BERG, District Judge. This matter is before the court on Magistrate Judge David R. Grand's June 19, 2014 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 15), recommending that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 13) be GRANTED, that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 10) be DENIED, and that the findings of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED. The law provides that either party may serve and file written objections "[w]ithin fourtee
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dkt. 15) TERRENCE G. BERG, District Judge. This matter is before the court on Magistrate Judge David R. Grand's June 19, 2014 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 15), recommending that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 13) be GRANTED, that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 10) be DENIED, and that the findings of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED. The law provides that either party may serve and file written objections "[w]ithin fourteen..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dkt. 15)
TERRENCE G. BERG, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Magistrate Judge David R. Grand's June 19, 2014 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 15), recommending that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 13) be GRANTED, that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 10) be DENIED, and that the findings of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED.
The law provides that either party may serve and file written objections "[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy" of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court will make a "de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made." Id. Where, as here, neither party objects to the report, the district court is not obligated to independently review the record. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985). Nevertheless, the Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation of June 19, 2014 (Dkt. 15), and does hereby ACCEPT and ADOPT it as this Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 13) is GRANTED, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 10) is DENIED, and the decision of the Commissioner, as authored by Administrative Law Judge Regina Sobrino, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
