Poole v. Astrue

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Plaintiff's 11 motion for summary judgment is denied. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this order as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 5/13/13 (PKS)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NATHAN POOLE, SR.
VERSUS

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12CV258-HSO-RHW

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

DEFENDANT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER
This cause comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [13] of
United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker entered in this cause on April 15,
2013, and on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [11] filed December 14,
2012, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56. Plaintiff filed his Complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review and reversal of the administrative decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security. The Magistrate Judge recommended that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [11] be denied, and that the
Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. Report and Recommendation [13], at p. 14.
To date, Plaintiff has not filed any objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.
Where no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) (“a judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions
of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection
-1-

is made.”). In such cases, the Court need only review the Report and
Recommendation and determine whether it is either clearly erroneous or contrary
to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
Based upon the record before this Court, and having conducted the required
review, the Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation is neither clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge properly recommended that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [11] be denied, and that the decision of
the Commissioner be affirmed. The Court further finds that, for the reasons stated
herein, the Report and Recommendation [13] of United States Magistrate Judge
Robert H. Walker entered in this cause on April 15, 2013, should be adopted as the
finding of this Court.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Report and
Recommendation [13] of United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker entered
on April 15, 2013, is adopted as the finding of this Court.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment [11] filed on December 14, 2012, is DENIED.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED. A separate judgment will be
entered in accordance with this Order as required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 58.

-2-

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 13th day of May, 2013.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-