Cunningham v. Colvin

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 15 Report and Recommendations, denying 12 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Belinda E. Cunningham. The complaint filed by plaintiff is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. on 9/15/2016 (wld)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BELINDA E. CUNNINGHAM
v.

PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO. 1:15CV379-LG-MTP

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of
Social Security

DEFENDANT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This cause comes before the Court on the [15] Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker. On November 13, 2015,
Plaintiff Belinda E. Cunningham, through counsel, filed a [1] Complaint against
Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial review of the
decision to deny her “application for Supplemental Security Income benefits for lack
of disability.” (See id. at 1 (¶1)). On April 25, 2016, Cunningham filed a [12]
Motion for Summary Judgment, to which Commissioner Colvin then filed her [14]
Opposition.
On August 23, 2016, Magistrate Judge Parker recommended that this Court
deny the Motion for Summary Judgment and affirm the denial of benefits. (See
Report and Rec. 17, ECF No. 15). Cunningham has not objected to any aspect of the
Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has now expired.
Where no party has objected to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, the 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 proposed findings and recommendations to which
objection 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. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
Having conducted the required review, the Court is of the opinion that
Magistrate Judge Parker’s Report and Recommendation is neither clearly erroneous
nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court finds that the [15] Report and
Recommendation should be adopted as the opinion of this Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [15] Report
and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker, should
be, and hereby is, adopted as the opinion of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [12] Motion for
Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff is DENIED, and the [1] Complaint filed by
Plaintiff is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A separate judgment will be
entered.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 15th day of September, 2016.

s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2