King v. Social Security Administration et al

Filing 25

ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT: The Court finds that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is supported by substantial evidence, and the same is hereby AFFIRMED. This order constitutes the final judgment in this action, and the Clerk is directed to close this case upon entry of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 9/6/2017. (ab)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION KEISHA KING v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL Acting Commissioner of Social Security 1 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:13-0733 ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s complaint for judicial review of an unfavorable final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration regarding her application for Supplemental Security Income. The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Court, having reviewed the record, the administrative transcript, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, and, for the reasons contained in the accompanying memorandum opinion, finds that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is supported by substantial evidence, and the same is hereby AFFIRMED. This order constitutes the final judgment in this action, and the Clerk is directed to close this case upon entry of this order. It is SO ORDERED. __________________________ BARBARA D. HOLMES United States Magistrate Judge 1 Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on January 23, 2017. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted for former Acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin as the defendant in this suit.

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?