Sipka v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, CIV-17-0491-HE. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Number: infdco20180205e76
Visitors: 3
Filed: Feb. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 02, 2018
Summary: ORDER JOE HEATON , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff Rachel Sipka filed this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), 636(b)(3) and Fed.R.Civ.P.72(b), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones for initial proceedings. He has recommended that the Commissioner's decis
Summary: ORDER JOE HEATON , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff Rachel Sipka filed this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), 636(b)(3) and Fed.R.Civ.P.72(b), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones for initial proceedings. He has recommended that the Commissioner's decisi..
More
ORDER
JOE HEATON, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff Rachel Sipka filed this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), 636(b)(3) and Fed.R.Civ.P.72(b), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones for initial proceedings. He has recommended that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed.
The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") issued an unfavorable decision on September 4, 2015, after a hearing. When the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner.
Plaintiff failed to object to the Report and Recommendation. She thereby waived her right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues it addressed. Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010); see 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C).
Accordingly, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Jones's Report and Recommendation. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
