Minor v. Astrue

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 11 Report and Recommendations, Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 3/10/2014 (wld)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SAMILLE A. MINOR
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE

§
§
§
§
§

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 1:13cv17-HSO-RHW
DEFENDANT

ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO REMAND,
AND GRANTING THE COMMISSIONER’S REQUEST TO AFFIRM
THE COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
BEFORE THE COURT is the Proposed Findings of Fact and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker [11] entered
on January 24, 2014. Also before the Court is the Complaint [1] filed on January
24, 2013, requesting that this Court find that Plaintiff is entitled to disability
benefits or, alternatively, to remand this case for a further hearing, Plaintiff’s
Memorandum Brief in Support of her Complaint [9] filed on May 22, 2013, and
Defendant’s Memorandum Brief in Opposition to the Complaint [10] filed on July
11, 2013, requesting that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. The Magistrate
Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s request to remand be denied and that the
Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits be affirmed.
Plaintiff has not filed any objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed
Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Where no party has objected to a
magistrate judge’s proposed findings of fact and recommendation, a court need not
conduct a de novo review of it. See 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
1

proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made.”). In such
cases, a court need only review the proposed findings of fact 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 on the record before this Court, and having conducted the required
review of the Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation, the Court is of the
opinion that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are
neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Court finds that the Magistrate
Judge properly recommended that Plaintiff’s request to remand this case for a
further hearing [1] be denied, and that the decision of the Commissioner be
affirmed. Based on the foregoing, the Proposed Findings of Fact and
Recommendation [11] of United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker entered
in this cause on January 24, 2014, should be adopted as the finding of this Court.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Proposed
Findings of Fact and Recommendation [11] of United States Magistrate Judge
Robert H. Walker entered on January 24, 2014, is adopted as the finding of this
Court.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s request
that this Court find that she is entitled to disability benefits is DENIED.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s request
that this case be remanded for a further hearing is DENIED.

2

IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance
with this Order as required by Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 10th day of March, 2014.

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

3