Riley v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Filing 19

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment;granting Defendant's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; accepting and adopting Magistrate Judge Carter's 16 Report and Recommendations. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 2/18/2014. (BJL, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
TAMMY RENEE RILEY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-23
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Carter

ORDER
On January 15, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge William Carter filed his
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Magistrate Judge Carter recommended that: (1)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 11) be denied; (2) Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13) be granted; (3) the Decision of the Commissioner be
affirmed; and (4) this action be dismissed.
Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. 17). However, Plaintiff’s objections are merely reiterations of
the original arguments raised in her Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Compare
Doc. 12 at 15-19 with Doc. 17 at 2-9). Further analysis of these same issues would be
cumulative and is unwarranted in light of Magistrate Judge Carter’s well-reasoned and
well-supported Report and Recommendation, in which he fully addressed Plaintiff’s
arguments. Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record,
specifically including those portions to which Plaintiff has objected, and the Court
agrees Magistrate Judge Carter’s analysis and conclusions.

Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Carter’s
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and
Rule 72(b); Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 17) are OVERRULED; Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 11) is DENIED; Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 13) is GRANTED; the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; and this
case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED this 18th day of February, 2014.

/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2