Markey v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
19
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 18 Report and Recommendations, 16 Motion to Affirm filed by Commissioner of Social Security Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III on 1/27/17 (MGB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
PATRICIA MARKEY
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL NO. 3:15-cv-743-DPJ-JCG
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY
DEFENDANT
ORDER
This Social Security case is before the Court for consideration of dismissal. In his Report
and Recommendation [18], United States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo recommends that
the Court grant the Commissioner’s Motion for an Order Affirming the Decision of the
Commissioner [16] and dismiss this case. Though the record indicates that Plaintiff never
responded to the Commissioner’s dispostive motion, Judge Gargiulo nevertheless examined the
merits and found them lacking. He therefore entered the Report and Recommendation on
January 6, 2017, and informed Plaintiff that she had fourteen (14) days to object. See R&R [18]
at 9. That deadline passed without objection.
The Court, having fully reviewed the unopposed Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge, and being duly advised in the premises, finds that the Report and
Recommendation should be adopted as this Court’s opinion.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo be, and the same is hereby, adopted as the finding of this
Court. The decision of the Social Security Administration is affirmed, and this appeal is
dismissed with prejudice.
A separate judgment will be entered herein in accordance with this Order as required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 27th day of January, 2017.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
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?