Roth v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 25 Report and Recommendation.. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 1/27/2017. (mb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social
Case No. CIV-16-2-D
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s final decision denying his
application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income
under the Social Security Act. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Shon T. Erwin for initial proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B). The parties fully briefed their respective positions and, on January
11, 2017, Judge Erwin filed his Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 25] in
which he recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed.
In his Report and Recommendation, Judge Erwin advised the parties of the
right to file objections to the same and directed the parties to file any objections no
later than January 25, 2017. Judge Erwin further admonished the parties that
failure to timely object would constitute a waiver of the right to appellate review of
the factual and legal issues addressed in the Report and Recommendation. The
deadline for filing objections has expired and to date, neither party has filed
objections or sought an extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, the
Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 25] is ADOPTED as though fully set forth
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner
denying Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income is AFFIRMED. A judgment shall be entered forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of January, 2017.
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?