MABRY v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 2:14-cv-00097. (2016)
Court: District Court, M.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20160311d48
Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 09, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2016
Summary: ORDER KEVIN H. SHARP , District Judge . Plaintiff Thomas Jefferson Mabry III has requested judicial review of the Security Administration's ("SSA") decision to deny him Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and to deny him Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Act. Plaintiff has moved for Judgment on the Administrative Record (Docket No. 31), to which the Commissioner of the SSA has responded in support of affirming the decision of the Admini
Summary: ORDER KEVIN H. SHARP , District Judge . Plaintiff Thomas Jefferson Mabry III has requested judicial review of the Security Administration's ("SSA") decision to deny him Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and to deny him Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Act. Plaintiff has moved for Judgment on the Administrative Record (Docket No. 31), to which the Commissioner of the SSA has responded in support of affirming the decision of the Adminis..
More
ORDER
KEVIN H. SHARP, District Judge.
Plaintiff Thomas Jefferson Mabry III has requested judicial review of the Security Administration's ("SSA") decision to deny him Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and to deny him Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Act. Plaintiff has moved for Judgment on the Administrative Record (Docket No. 31), to which the Commissioner of the SSA has responded in support of affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ").1
Magistrate Judge Bryant has issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Docket No. 35) in which he recommends that Plaintiff's Motion be denied, the ALJ's decision affirmed, and the case dismissed. Despite being advised that any objection to the R & R needed to be filed within fourteen days, Plaintiff has filed none. Having considered the matter de novo as required by Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court agrees with the recommended disposition. The R & R thoroughly considers and rejects all of Plaintiff's Claims of Error and the Court finds no error in that analysis.
Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows:
1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 35) is ACCEPTED and APPROVED;
2) Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Judgment on the Record (Docket No. 31) is DENIED;
3) All other pending motions (Docket No. 18) are TERMINATED AS MOOT; and
4) This case is DISMISSED.
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
It is SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. As is explained in the R & R, the pending motion is Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record. The original motion (Docket No. 18) could not be considered because it was filed by Plaintiff's wife on his behalf, and she is not an attorney.
Source: Leagle
