ADAMS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 4:13-cv-22. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20140710d61
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jul. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 09, 2014
Summary: ORDER HARRY S. MATTICE, Jr., District Judge. On June 3, 2014, United States Magistrate Susan K. Lee filed her Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Lee recommended that (1) Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 14) be denied; (2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) be granted; (3) the Decision of the Commissioner be affirmed; and (4) this action be dismissed. Pla
Summary: ORDER HARRY S. MATTICE, Jr., District Judge. On June 3, 2014, United States Magistrate Susan K. Lee filed her Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Lee recommended that (1) Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 14) be denied; (2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) be granted; (3) the Decision of the Commissioner be affirmed; and (4) this action be dismissed. Plai..
More
ORDER
HARRY S. MATTICE, Jr., District Judge.
On June 3, 2014, United States Magistrate Susan K. Lee filed her Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Lee recommended that (1) Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 14) be denied; (2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) be granted; (3) the Decision of the Commissioner be affirmed; and (4) this action be dismissed.
Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.1 Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a reviewed the Report and Recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Lee's well-reasoned conclusions.
Accordingly:
• The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lee's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b);
• Plaintiff's Amended Motion Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 14) is DENIED;
• Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) is GRANTED;
• The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED;
• This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Magistrate Judge Lee 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. 20 at 31 n.1); 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"). Even taking into account the three additional days for service provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), the period in which Plaintiff could timely file any objections has now expired.
Source: Leagle
