Norris v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Filing 26

ORDER accepting and adopting 25 Report and Recommendations; denying 21 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 23 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 8/24/17. (aws, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE at WINCHESTER DONNA MARIE NORRIS, Plaintiff, v. NANCY BERRYHILL Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:15-cv-81 Judge Mattice Magistrate Judge Steger ORDER On August 3, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger filed his Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 25), 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. 21), be denied; (2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 23), be granted; and (3) the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. (Doc. 25 at 12). 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 Steger’s wellreasoned conclusions. 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 his right to appeal. (Doc. 25 at 12 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. 1 Accordingly:  The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Steger’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations, (Doc. 25), pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b);  Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 21), is hereby DENIED;  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 23), is hereby GRANTED; and  The decision of the Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED; A separate judgment will enter. SO ORDERED this 24th day of August, 2017. /s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr.______ HARRY S. MATTICE, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?