Filed: Sep. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (document no. 13), GRANTING COMMISSIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 12), DENYING ALEXANDER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 8), AND DISMISSING CASE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III, District Judge. The Social Security Administration denied plaintiff and claimant Tonya Alexander's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits in a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge on January 25,
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (document no. 13), GRANTING COMMISSIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 12), DENYING ALEXANDER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 8), AND DISMISSING CASE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III, District Judge. The Social Security Administration denied plaintiff and claimant Tonya Alexander's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits in a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge on January 25, ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (document no. 13), GRANTING COMMISSIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 12), DENYING ALEXANDER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 8), AND DISMISSING CASE
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III, District Judge.
The Social Security Administration denied plaintiff and claimant Tonya Alexander's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits in a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge on January 25, 2012. See ALJ Decision, ECF No. 6-2, at 13. After the SSA Appeals Council declined to review the decision, Alexander appealed to this Court. The Court referred the matter to a United States Magistrate Judge, and the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. On July 16, 2014, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting that the Court grant the Commissioner of Social Security's motion and deny Alexander's motion. Report, ECF No. 13.
Under Civil Rule 72(b), each party had fourteen days from the date of service to file any written objections to the recommended disposition. Neither party has filed any objections. De novo review of the magistrate judge's findings is therefore not required. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). The Court has reviewed the file and the Report, and finds that the magistrate judge's analysis is proper. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report's findings and conclusions and will enter an appropriate judgment.1
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (document no. 12) is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (document no. 13) is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Alexander's Motion for Summary Judgment (document no. 8) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
