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, )

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