Fobes v. Colvin

Filing 12

ORDER denying 8 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; adopting Report and Recommendations re 11 Report and Recommendations. Ordered that the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 2/22/17. (JCH)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT T. FOBES
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 1:15cv316-HSO-FKB

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

DEFENDANT

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE=S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [11], DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [8], AFFIRMING DECISION OF
COMMISSIONER, AND DIMISSING PLAINTIF’S COMPLAINT [1]
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [11]
of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball, entered in this case on January
30, 2017. After due consideration of the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff
Robert T. Fobes’ Complaint [1] and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [8], the
record as a whole, and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation should be adopted, that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings [8] should be denied, that the decision of the
Commissioner should be affirmed, and that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be
dismissed.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 17, 2015, Plaintiff Robert T. Fobes (APlaintiff@) filed his
Complaint [1] asserting that he Ais disabled” and that “the conclusions and findings

of fact of the [D]efendant are not supported by substantial evidence and are
contrary to law and regulation.” Compl. [1] at 2. Plaintiff seeks a finding that he
is “entitled to disability benefits under the provisions of the Social Security Act” or,
in the alternative, a “remand for a further hearing.” Id.

On December 22, 2015,

Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (“Commissioner”), filed an Answer [4] and submitted the
Administrative Record [5].
On March 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
[8].

The Commissioner’s Memorandum in Opposition [10] was filed on May 3,

2016.
On January 30, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball entered
his Report and Recommendation [11], recommending that the decision of the
Commissioner be affirmed. To date, no objection to the Report and
Recommendation has been filed.

Plaintiff is represented by counsel in this

proceeding.
II.

DISCUSSION

Where no party has objected to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings of fact
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

2

objection is made”). In such cases, the Court applies the “clearly erroneous, abuse
of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review. United States v. Wilson, 864
F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
Having conducted the required review, the Court concludes that Magistrate
Judge Ball’s findings are not clearly erroneous, nor are they an abuse of discretion
or contrary to law. For these reasons, the Court will adopt Magistrate Judge F.
Keith Ball’s Report and Recommendation [11] as the opinion of this Court and deny
Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [8].
III. CONCLUSION
After a thorough review and consideration of Magistrate Judge F. Keith
Ball’s Report and Recommendation [11] and the record as a whole, the Court
concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [16] should be
adopted as the finding of this Court, that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings [8] should be denied, that the Commissioner’s decision should be
affirmed, and that Plaintiff=s Complaint [1] should be dismissed.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation [11], entered in this case on January 30, 2017,
is ADOPTED as the finding of this Court and that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings [8] is DENIED. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff’s Complaint [1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A separate

3

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 22nd day of February, 2017.

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

4