Yeager v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. Virginia

Yeager v. Commissioner of Social Security

Trial Court Opinion

1IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division DEBORAH A. YEAGER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-0513 (RDA/JFA) ) KIOLO KIJAKAZI, ) Acting Commissioner ) of the Social Security Administration,1 ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate John F. Anderson on February 5, 2021. Dkt. 26. In this Social Security Administration appeal, Judge Anderson recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 22), deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 17), and affirm the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claim for Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), the deadline for submitting objections to Judge Anderson’s Report and Recommendation was February 19, 2021. To date, no objections have been filed.

1 Kiolo Kijakazi is automatically substituted as Defendant in this action, replacing Andrew Saul. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). After reviewing the record and Judge Anderson’s Report and Recommendation, and finding no clear error,” the Court hereby APPROVES and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 26) in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 22) is GRANTED, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 17) is DENIED, and this case is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, forward copies of this Order to counsel of record, and close this civil action. It is SO ORDERED. Alexandria, Virginia October 21, 2021

Rossie D. Alston, Jr. United States District Judge

See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,

416 F.3d 310, 315

(4th Cir. 2005) (holding that in the absence of any objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the Court “need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation’”).

Reference

Status
Unknown