STREET v. ASTRUE, 2:09-cv-266. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20120629e06
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jun. 28, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 28, 2012
Summary: ORDER HARRY S. MATTICE, Jr., District Judge. On April 19, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge William Carter filed his Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Carter recommended that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) be granted, the Decision of the Commissioner be affirmed, and this action be dismissed. Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendatio
Summary: ORDER HARRY S. MATTICE, Jr., District Judge. On April 19, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge William Carter filed his Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Carter recommended that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) be granted, the Decision of the Commissioner be affirmed, and this action be dismissed. Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation..
More
ORDER
HARRY S. MATTICE, Jr., District Judge.
On April 19, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge William Carter filed his Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Carter recommended that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) be granted, the Decision of the Commissioner be affirmed, and this action be dismissed.
Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.1 Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Carter's well-reasoned conclusions.
Accordingly:
• The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Carter's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b);
• Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) is GRANTED;
• The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; and
• This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Magistrate Judge Carter specifically advised Plaintiff that he had 14 days in which to object to the Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive his right to appeal. (Doc. 18 at 13 n.4); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (noting that "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings"). The period in which Plaintiff could timely file objections has expired.
Source: Leagle
