Petro v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
17
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 16 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
CATHY PETRO,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-16-644-D
ORDER
Plaintiff Cathy Petro brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and
423(d)(1)(A) for review of the defendant Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration’s final decision that Plaintiff was not “disabled” under the terms of the Social
Security Act. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell
for initial proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). The parties briefed their respective positions and, on January 4, 2017, the Magistrate
Judge filed her Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 16] in which she recommended an
entry of judgment affirming the Acting Commissioner’s final decision.
In her Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the
right to file objections to the same and directed the parties to file any objections no later than
January 24, 2017. The Magistrate Judge 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 an objection or sought an extension of time in
which to do so. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 16] is ADOPTED
as though fully set forth herein.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the final decision of the Acting Commissioner
is hereby AFFIRMED. A separate judgment will follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of January, 2017.
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?