Agin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 16 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and the complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that any motion not previously ruled on is DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 1/6/2016. (gsg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DONALD GLENN AGIN,
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
CIVIL ACTION No. 6:13-cv-952
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Donald Agin initiated this civil action pursuant to Social Security Act, Section
205(g) for judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial of Plaintiff’s application for Social
Security benefits. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
concluding that the decision of the Commissioner should be affirmed and the action dismissed
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains his findings,
conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of this action, has been presented for
consideration (Doc. No. 16). The parties have made no objections to the Report and
Recommendations. The Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge are correct. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of
the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
It is accordingly ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and
the complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that any
motion not previously ruled on is DENIED.
SIGNED this 6th day of January, 2016.
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
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?