Orr v. Social Security Admininistration

District Court, E.D. Texas

Orr v. Social Security Admininistration

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

§ MICHELLE ORR, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:20-cv-421-JDK-KNM § COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL § SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, § § Defendant. § §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

. On November 2, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss and dismiss this action with prejudice. Docket No. 7. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation.

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

79 F.3d 1415, 1430

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute,

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, Plaintiff did file objections. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson,

864 F.2d 1219, 1221

(5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied,

492 U.S. 918

(1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 7) as the findings of this Court. The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 6) is GRANTED and the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 17th day of November, 2020. qe J Korb JHREMYD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown