Haddock v. Astrue

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Roberts...the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 01/17/2012. (lam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DENISE KAY HADDOCK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner,
Social Security Administration
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-10-1393-HE

ORDER
Plaintiff Denise Haddock filed this case seeking judicial review of the final decision
of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying her
application for supplemental security income payments under the Social Security Act.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Bana
Roberts. Judge Roberts recommended the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. Report and
Recommendation [Doc. #14]. Objections to Judge Roberts’s Report and Recommendation
were due by November 29, 2011.
The parties, having failed to object to the Report and Recommendation, waived their
right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues it addressed. United States v. 2121
E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A
judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” (emphasis
added)).

The court therefore ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Roberts’s Report and

Recommendation [Doc. #14], and the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 17th day of January, 2012.

2