Mabry et al v. Social Security Administration

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows: The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 35) is ACCEPTED and APPROVED. Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Judgment on the Record (Docket No. 31) is DENIED. All other pending motions (Docket No. 18) are TERMINATED AS MOOT and This case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 3/9/2016. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
THOMAS JEFFERSON MABRY III,
And LORETTA MABRY, POA,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:14-cv-00097
Judge Sharp
Magistrate Judge Brown

ORDER
Plaintiff Thomas Jefferson Mabry III has requested judicial review of the Security
Administration’s (“SSA”) decision to deny him Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of
the Social Security Act and to deny him Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the
Act. Plaintiff has moved for Judgment on the Administrative Record (Docket No. 31), to which
the Commissioner of the SSA has responded in support of affirming the decision of the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).1
Magistrate Judge Bryant has issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket
No. 35) in which he recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied, the ALJ’s decision affirmed,
and the case dismissed. Despite being advised that any objection to the R & R needed to be filed
within fourteen days, Plaintiff has filed none. Having considered the matter de novo as required
by Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court agrees with the recommended
disposition. The R & R thoroughly considers and rejects all of Plaintiff’s Claims of Error and
the Court finds no error in that analysis.

1

As is explained in the R & R, the pending motion is Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Judgment on the
Administrative Record. The original motion (Docket No. 18) could not be considered because it was filed by
Plaintiff’s wife on his behalf, and she is not an attorney.

Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows:
1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 35) is ACCEPTED and APPROVED;
2) Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Judgment on the Record (Docket No. 31) is
DENIED;
3) All other pending motions (Docket No. 18) are TERMINATED AS MOOT; and
4) This case is DISMISSED.
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
It is SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE