Campbell v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Filing 17

ORDER: denying Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting Defendant's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment; and adopting Magistrate Judge Carter's 16 Report and Recommendation. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 1/23/2012. (BJL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at GREENEVILLE
LINDA CAMPBELL,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

Case No. 2:10-cv-217
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Carter

ORDER
On January 3, 2012, 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 Judgment on the Pleadings or for Remand (Doc. 9) be denied; (2) Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) 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 reviewed the Report and

Recommendation as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Carter’s
conclusions.
Accordingly:

1

Magistrate Judge Carter specifically advised Plaintiff that she had 14 days in which to object to the
Report and Recom m endation and that failure to do so would waive her right to appeal. (Doc. 16 at 24 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 m agistrate's factual or legal conclusions,
under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings”). Taking into account
the three additional days for service provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), the period in which Plaintiff could tim ely
file objections expired on January 20, 2012.

•

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 or for Remand (Doc. 9) is DENIED;

•

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) is GRANTED;

•

The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; and

•

This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2012.

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

-2-