Sparks v. Colvin

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; 7 Motion for Summary Judgment denied; 11 Motion to Affirm granted. This action will be dismissed with prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 8/11/15 (LWE)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION ANGELA DIANNE SPARKS VS. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14CV120TSL-JCG CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY DEFENDANT ORDER This cause is before the court on the objections of plaintiff Angela Dianne Sparks to the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo on June 12, 2015, recommending that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied and the government’s motion to affirm the decision of the Commissioner be granted. The court, having fully reviewed the report and recommendation and being duly advised in the premise, and having conducted a de novo review of those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections were made, now finds that the report and recommendation should be adopted as the opinion on the court over plaintiff’s objections. Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that plaintiff’s objections to the report and recommendation are overruled. It is further ordered that the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo be, and the same is hereby, adopted as the findings of the court. It follows then that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied and that defendant’s motion to affirm is granted, such that the action will be dismissed with prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SO ORDERED this 11th day of August, 2015. /s/Tom S. Lee UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?