Filed: Jul. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 16, 2015
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (document no. 17), DENYING LEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 13), GRANTING COMMISSIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 15), AND DISMISSING THE CASE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III , District Judge . The Social Security Administration denied plaintiff and claimant Karen Lee's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits in a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge on November 15,
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (document no. 17), DENYING LEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 13), GRANTING COMMISSIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 15), AND DISMISSING THE CASE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III , District Judge . The Social Security Administration denied plaintiff and claimant Karen Lee's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits in a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge on November 15, 2..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (document no. 17), DENYING LEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 13), GRANTING COMMISSIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 15), AND DISMISSING THE CASE
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III, District Judge.
The Social Security Administration denied plaintiff and claimant Karen Lee's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits in a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge on November 15, 2012. Tr. 21, ECF No. 10-2. After the SSA Appeals Council declined to review the decision, Lee appealed to this Court. The Court referred the matter to a United States Magistrate Judge, and the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 13, 15. On June 30, 2015, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation, advising the Court to grant the Commissioner's motion, deny Lee's motion, and dismiss the case. ECF No. 17.
Under Civil Rule 72(b), both parties 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.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation (document no. 17) is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Lee's Motion For Summary Judgment (document no. 13) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion For Summary Judgment (document no. 15) is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.