Henderson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 16 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin and reverses the final decision of the Commissioner and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with the report and recommendation. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 06/10/2013. (lam)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA REGINALD HENDERSON, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. CIV-12-0381-HE ORDER Plaintiff Reginald Henderson instituted this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin, who recommends that the decision be reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. Objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation were due by May 3, 2013. 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)). Accordingly, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Erwins’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. #16], REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner and REMANDS the case for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 10th day of June, 2013. 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?