Dang v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER Signed by Judge David J. Hale on 9/9/2020: The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Regina S. Edwards DN 18 are ADOPTED in full and INCORPORATED by reference herein. A separate judgment will be entered this date. cc: Counsel (JM)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION TONY V. DANG, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-737-DJH-RSE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. * * * * * ORDER Plaintiff Tony V. Dang filed this action seeking review of the decision by Defendant Commissioner of Social Security to deny Dang’s application for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. (Docket No. 1) The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Regina S. Edwards for report and recommendation. Judge Edwards issued her Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation on August 25, 2020, recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. (D.N. 18) The time for objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation has now run, with no objections filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Because no party has objected to the report and recommendation, the Court may adopt it without review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Nevertheless, the Court has conducted its own review of the record and finds no error in the magistrate judge’s conclusions. Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: (1) The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Regina S. Edwards (D.N. 18) are ADOPTED in full and INCORPORATED by reference herein. (2) A separate judgment will be entered this date. September 9, 2020 David J. Hale, Judge United States District Court 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?