Reed v. Berryhill, 2:18-CV-111. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
Number: infdco20190628837
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jun. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 24, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION DAVID S. MORALES , District Judge . Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby's Memorandum and Recommendation, entered on April 30, 2019. (D.E. 14). This Memorandum and Recommendation recommends that the Court affirm the final decision of Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, denying Plaintiff Mary Lou Reed's claim for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION DAVID S. MORALES , District Judge . Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby's Memorandum and Recommendation, entered on April 30, 2019. (D.E. 14). This Memorandum and Recommendation recommends that the Court affirm the final decision of Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, denying Plaintiff Mary Lou Reed's claim for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
DAVID S. MORALES, District Judge.
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby's Memorandum and Recommendation, entered on April 30, 2019. (D.E. 14). This Memorandum and Recommendation recommends that the Court affirm the final decision of Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, denying Plaintiff Mary Lou Reed's claim for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). (D.E. 14).
The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No timely objection has been filed. 29 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). Where no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, the Court ADOPTS the Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 14) in its entirety. Accordingly, the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and the above-entitled action is DISMISSED.
SIGNED and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
