McCollum

Filing 17

ORDER denying 10 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 13 Motion to Amend/Correct; adopting Report and Recommendations re 15 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 3/17/2016. (SAC, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at WINCHESTER
DAWN LUGENE MCCOLLUM,

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

Case No. 4:14-cv-66
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Steger

ORDER
On February 25, 2016, United States Magistrate Christopher H. Steger filed his
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Steger recommended that (1) Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10) be denied; (2) Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 11) be granted; (3) the Decision of the Commissioner be
affirmed; and (4) this action be dismissed.1
Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.2 Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a reviewed the Report and

Although he did not specifically make a recommendation regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend her
Motion for Summary Judgment in order to correct a typographical error regarding her age and date of
birth, Magistrate Judge Steger incorporated the correct birthdate and age into his recitation of the facts.
(See Doc. 13; Doc. 15 at 3). Thus, the Court will assume that Magistrate Judge Steger intended to
recommend that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend be granted.
1

Magistrate Judge Steger 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 her right to appeal. (Doc. 15 at 23
n.5); 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.

2

Recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Steger’s
well-reasoned conclusions.
Accordingly:


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



Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 13) is GRANTED;



Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10) is DENIED;



Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 11) is GRANTED;



The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED;



This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED this 17th day of March, 2016.

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

2