Crump v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. Texas

Crump v. Commissioner of Social Security

Trial Court Opinion

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

JOHN R. CRUMP, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:20-cv-320-JDK-JDL § COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL § SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, § § Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff John R. Crump filed this action against the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on June 17, 2020. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. On March 18, 2021, Judge Love issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the ALJ’s decision be reversed and remanded for reconsideration. Docket No. 17. As explained in the Report, the ALJ found that Plaintiff became disabled on January 4, 2018, but failed to support the chosen onset date with substantial evidence. 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(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute,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, Defendant did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews his 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 and the record in this case, 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. 17) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that the decision of the ALJ is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 20th day of April, 2021. qe J Kerb JHREMYD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown