Hayden v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION - The magistrate judge to whom this case initially was assigned entered a report in which she recommended that the Court reverse and remand the Commissioners decision denying Mr. Haydens disability claim. (Doc. 11 , p. 7). The mag istrate judge advised the parties of their right to file objections within 14 days. (Doc. 11 , pp. 7-8). To date, no party has filed objections to the magistrate judges report and recommendation. The Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judges description of the relevant facts. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judges report and accepts her recommendation.The Court will issue a separate final judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 3/11/2019. (KEK)

FILED
2019 Mar-11 AM 09:00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

THOMAS CHARLES HAYDEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Case No.: 5:17-cv-00881-MHH

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The magistrate judge to whom this case initially was assigned entered a
report in which she recommended that the Court reverse and remand the
Commissioner’s decision denying Mr. Hayden’s disability claim. (Doc. 11, p. 7).
The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file objections within 14
days. (Doc. 11, pp. 7-8). To date, no 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 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).
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 her recommendation.
The Court will issue a separate final judgment consistent with this
memorandum opinion.
DONE this 11th day of March, 2019.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2