Conrady v. Saul, CIV-19-00153-PRW. (2020)
Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Number: infdco20200203f28
Visitors: 36
Filed: Jan. 31, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 31, 2020
Summary: ORDER PATRICK R. WYRICK , District Judge . Plaintiff, Justin Conrady, instituted this action seeking judicial review of the Defendant Commissioner's final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 423, 1382. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), the case was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell, who has issued a Report and Recommendation
Summary: ORDER PATRICK R. WYRICK , District Judge . Plaintiff, Justin Conrady, instituted this action seeking judicial review of the Defendant Commissioner's final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 423, 1382. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), the case was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell, who has issued a Report and Recommendation (..
More
ORDER
PATRICK R. WYRICK, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Justin Conrady, instituted this action seeking judicial review of the Defendant Commissioner's final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 423, 1382. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the case was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell, who has issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 20) recommending that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 20) by December 4, 2019. No objections have been filed as of this date. Having failed to object, the Plaintiff has waived his right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed in the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 20).1 Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation in accordance with § 636(b)(1), AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision, and ORDERS that judgment issue forthwith in accordance with the provisions of sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059-60 (10th Cir. 1996); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.").
Source: Leagle
