Mays v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
17
ORDER ADOPTING 14 Report and Recommendation. The decision of the Commissioner denying plf's applications for benefits is AFFIRMED. Signed by Honorable Stephen P. Friot on 2/27/15. (llg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RHONDA MAYS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-14-0255-F
ORDER
Plaintiff Rhonda Mays brings this action seeking judicial review pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration denying plaintiff’s applications for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income payments under the Social Security Act.
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell, dated
February 2, 2015 (the Report, doc. no. 14), recommends affirming the decision of the
Commissioner to deny plaintiff’s application for benefits. Plaintiff has objected to the
Report on several specific grounds. Doc. no. 15. The defendant has filed a response.
Doc. no. 16.
The court has reviewed and carefully considered de novo each of the plaintiff’s
objections to the Report. See, 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) (court makes a de novo
determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made). Having
reviewed the Report, the record, and the relevant arguments and authorities, the court
finds that it agrees with the position taken by the defendant in its response to the
plaintiff’s objections, and that no purpose would be served by setting out any further
analysis here.
The court hereby ACCEPTS, ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the findings and
recommendations of the magistrate judge as stated in the Report and
Recommendation. The decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff’s applications
for benefits is AFFIRMED.
Dated this 27th day of February, 2015.
14-0255p002.wpd
-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?