McMICHAEL v. COLVIN, 4:13-CV-860-A. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
Number: infdco20150312f51
Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 10, 2015
Summary: ORDER JOHN McBRYDE , District Judge . Came on for consideration the above-captioned action wherein Tina McMichael is plaintiff and Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ("Commissioner") is defendant. This is an action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff's claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. On January 20, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge issued his proposed fi
Summary: ORDER JOHN McBRYDE , District Judge . Came on for consideration the above-captioned action wherein Tina McMichael is plaintiff and Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ("Commissioner") is defendant. This is an action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff's claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. On January 20, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge issued his proposed fin..
More
ORDER
JOHN McBRYDE, District Judge.
Came on for consideration the above-captioned action wherein Tina McMichael is plaintiff and Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ("Commissioner") is defendant. This is an action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff's claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. On January 20, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge issued his proposed findings and conclusions and his recommendation, and granted the parties until February 3, 2015, in which to file and serve any written objections thereto. Plaintiff filed her objections on February 2, 2015, and Commissioner filed a response on February 11, 2015. After a thorough study of the record, the magistrate judge's proposed findings and conclusions, and applicable legal authorities, the court has concluded that plaintiff's objections lack merit and that the recommendation of the magistrate judge should be accepted.
Therefore,
The court accepts the recommendation of the magistrate judge and ORDERS that the decision of the Commissioner that, based on the application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits filed on August 3, 2010, plaintiff is not disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act be, and is hereby, affirmed.
Source: Leagle
