Hudson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 12/22/2016. (KEK)

FILED
2016 Dec-22 PM 04:23
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT ROMAREZ HUDSON,
Plaintiff
vs.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 2:15-cv-01936-MHH
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 7, 2016, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he
recommended that the Court dismiss this social security appeal with prejudice
because pro se plaintiff Robert Romarez Hudson failed to file his complaint in a
timely manner. (Doc. 14). The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to
file written objections within fourteen (14) days. (Doc. 14, pp. 4-5). To date, neither
party has filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain error

Page 1 of 2

factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779
n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 (11th Cir.
1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation, the Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and
no plain error in the magistrate judge’s description of the relevant facts. Therefore,
the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his recommendation.
The Court will enter a separate final order dismissing this action.
DONE this 22nd day of December, 2016.

MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2