Elix v. Astrue

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 22 of Magistrate Judge Charles Goodwin and the decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings...this does not suggest or imply any view as to whether the claimant is or is not disabled or what result should be reached on remand. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 03/07/2014. (lam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TAMMY ELIX, o/b/o JE (minor),
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, acting
Commissioner, Social Security
Administration
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-13-0139-HE

ORDER
Plaintiff Tammy Elix filed this action on behalf of her minor son, J.E., pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying their
application for supplemental security income payments under the Social Security Act.
Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Charles
B. Goodwin, who recommends that the decision be reversed and remanded for further
proceedings. Objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation were due by
March 5, 2014.
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 Goodwin’s Report and

Recommendation [Doc. #22], and the decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for further
proceedings. This does not suggest or imply any view as to whether the claimant is or is not
disabled, or what result should be reached on remand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 7th day of March, 2014.

2