Rogers v. Colvin

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19 ; denying 12 Katina Roger's Motion for Summary Judgment ; granting 14 The Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon on 9/20/2017. (nmfn)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE KATINA ANN ROGERS, Plaintiff, 1:16CV219 vs. ORDER NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security1, Defendant. This matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, Filing No. 19. The magistrate judge thoroughly reviewed the facts, medical evidence, and the relevant law and recommends that this Court deny Katina Rogers’ motion for summary judgment, Filing No. 12, and grant the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, Filing No.14. Rogers did not file an objection to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Court has carefully reviewed, de novo, the report and recommendations. See Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). The Court concludes that the magistrate judge is reasonable. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Katina Rogers’ motion for summary judgment, Filing No. 12, is denied; 2. The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, Filing No. 14, is granted; 1 Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted for former Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin. 3. The report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, Filing No. 19, is adopted in its entirety; 4. This case is dismissed, and a separate judgment will be entered in conjunction with this order. Dated this 20th day of September, 2017. BY THE COURT: s/ Joseph F. Bataillon Senior United States District Judge 2

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?