Fairchild v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 16 Report and Recommendations as the finding of this Court and the Commissioner's decision is affirmed. Plaintiff's 1 Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 2/17/17. (RLW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
MICHAEL BROOKS FAIRCHILD
CIVIL NO. 1:15cv324-HSO-RHW
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE=S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION , AFFIRMING DECISION OF
COMMISSIONER, AND DIMISSING PLAINTIF’S COMPLAINT 
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation 
of United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker, entered in this case on
January 13, 2017. After due consideration of the Report and Recommendation,
Plaintiff Michael Brooks Fairchild’s Complaint , the record as a whole, and all
relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation should be adopted, that the decision of the Commissioner should
be affirmed, and that the Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed.
On September 28, 2015, Plaintiff Michael Brooks Fairchild (APlaintiff@) filed
his Complaint  asserting that he Ais disabled” and that the “denial of his
disability claim is not supported by substantial evidence under the standards set
forth by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
Compl.  at 2.
Plaintiff asserts that “the denial of
his claim should be reversed or remanded for further administrative proceedings.”
On March 7, 2016, Defendant Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (“Commissioner”) filed an Answer  and the Administrative
On April 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Memorandum in Support  of his
Complaint. The Commissioner’s Memorandum in Opposition  was filed on
June 3, 2016. On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Reply .
On January 13, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker
entered the Report and Recommendation , 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
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
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 Walker’s findings are not clearly erroneous, nor are they an abuse of
discretion or contrary to law. For the foregoing reasons, the Court will adopt
Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker’s Report and Recommendation  as the
opinion of this Court.
After a thorough review and consideration of Magistrate Judge Robert H.
Walker’s Report and Recommendation  and the record as a whole, the Court
concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation  should be
adopted as the finding of this Court, the Commissioner’s decision will be affirmed,
and Plaintiff=s Complaint  will be dismissed.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation , entered in this case on January 13, 2017,
is ADOPTED as the finding of this Court and the Commissioner’s decision is
Plaintiff’s Complaint  is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 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 17th day of February, 2017.
s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?