Whitman v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Filing 21

ORDER denying 12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 18 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 20 Report and Recommendations. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 7/9/2014. (DJH, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
LAINIE S. WHITMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
Defendant.
)
)

Case No. 1:13-cv-136
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Carter

ORDER
On May 13, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge William B. Carter filed his
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) 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 Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 12) be denied; (2) Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) be granted; (3) the Decision of the Commissioner be
affirmed; and (4) this action be dismissed.
Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.1 Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a reviewed the Report and
Recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Carter’s
well-reasoned conclusions.

Magistrate Judge Carter specifically advised Plaintiff that she had 14 days in which to object to the
Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive his right to appeal. (Doc. 20 at 17
n.4); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (noting that “[i]t
does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings”). Even
taking into account the three additional days for service provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), the period in
which Plaintiff could timely file any objections has now expired.
1

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 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 12) is DENIED;



Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) is GRANTED;



The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED;



This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED this 9th day of July, 2014.

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

2