Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 15 Report and Recommendations and granting 13 Motion to Affirm filed by SSA General Counsel, Commissioner of Social Security. Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III on 08/20/18 (KNS)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION SHARON NEWMAN ANDERSON PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-363-DPJ-JCG COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY DEFENDANT ORDER This case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) entered by United States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo. R&R [15]. On December 22, 2017, Social Security Commissioner Nancy Berryhill (“Commissioner”) moved for an order affirming the commissioner’s decision. Def.’s Mot. [13]. On July 25, 2018, Judge Gargiulo recommended that the Commissioner’s motion be granted, finding that the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. See R&R [15] at 1– 2. Additionally, Judge Garguilo noted that Anderson had failed to submit any “new, material evidence that warrants remand.” Id. at 2. Anderson failed to respond in opposition to the R&R, and the time to do so has now expired. The Court, having fully reviewed the unopposed R&R of the United States Magistrate Judge, and being advised in the premises, finds that the R&R [15] should be adopted as the opinion of this Court. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the R&R [15] of United States Magistrate John C. Gargiulo be, and the same is hereby, adopted as the finding of this Court. The Motion to Affirm [13] is granted. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 20th day of August, 2018. s/ Daniel P. Jordan III CHIEF 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?