Shoun v. Saul, CIV-19-363-D. (2020)
Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Number: infdco20200106a32
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jan. 03, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 03, 2020
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI , District Judge . This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 20], issued by United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Judge Purcell finds that the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits should be affirmed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, has not filed a timely objection nor reques
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI , District Judge . This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 20], issued by United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Judge Purcell finds that the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits should be affirmed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, has not filed a timely objection nor request..
More
ORDER
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 20], issued by United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Judge Purcell finds that the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits should be affirmed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, has not filed a timely objection nor requested additional time to object. Upon consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff has waived further judicial review.1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 20] is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. A separate judgment shall be entered accordingly.
FootNotes
1. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996).
Source: Leagle
