Reynolds v. Social Security Administration
ORDER ADOPTING 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; Judgment will be entered accordingly. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr on 11/21/08. (mkf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION PAUL REYNOLDS v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, ORDER The Court has received proposed Findings and Recommendations from Magistrate Judge H. David Young, and the timely objections thereto. In addition to arguing that the Magistrate Judge "misinterpreted and/or misapplied the law," Plaintiff's objections noted that Defendant filed an appeal brief that "incorrectly depicted the substantive facts and objective evidence related to" his claim, and that after a deficiency notice from the Court, Defendant filed a second factually flawed brief.1 The Magistrate Judge was aware that the briefs were flawed, and wrote in his Recommendations: "Inexplicably, the Argument portion of Defendant's Brief does not deal with the facts of this case, but apparently those of another case. This is a relatively straightforward case, however, so the lack of a pertinent Brief by Defendant is no impediment to reach a decision."2 After careful review of the Findings and Recommendations and Plaintiff's objections, the Court concludes that the Findings and Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. Judgment will be entered accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of November, 2008. 4:07CV00611 WRW PLAINTIFF
/s/Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Doc. No. 16. Doc. No. 15, pg. 2, n. 1.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?