Madlock v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION CARLOS M. PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-203-DPJ-ASH COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY DEFENDANT ORDER This social-security appeal is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [13] of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris. Judge Harris recommends affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, which denied Plaintiff Carlos M.’s application for disability benefits. The R&R issued on August 6, 2025, and Plaintiff had fourteen days to object to it if he wished. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see R&R [13] at 17–18 (advising Plaintiff of deadline). Plaintiff did not object.

“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983), quoted in Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) as noted in Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017). Finding no clear error, the Court accepts Judge Harris’s well-reasoned recommendation. Plaintiff’s appeal is denied.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [13] of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris is adopted as the finding and holding of this Court.

The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed, and Plaintiff’s suit is dismissed with prejudice.

A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with the Order as required by Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 22nd day of August, 2025.

s/ Daniel P. Jordan III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE