Brown v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Filing 24

ORDER denying 19 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 23 Report and Recommendations. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 3/3/2014. (DJH, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at WINCHESTER
STANLEY RAY BROWN,

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

Case No. 4:12-cv-80
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Lee

ORDER
On February 5, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed her
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Lee recommended that (1) Plaintiff’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 19) be denied; (2) Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) 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 review of the Report and
Recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Lee’s wellreasoned conclusions.

Magistrate Judge Lee specifically advised Plaintiff that he 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. 23 at 22 n.1); 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 passed.

1

Accordingly:
•

The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lee’s findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to § 636(b)(1)
and Rule 72(b);

•

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) is DENIED;

•

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) is GRANTED;

•

The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; and

•

This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED this 3rd day of March, 2014.

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

2