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)

Download PDF
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?