Rogers v. Colvin
Filing
17
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 15 Report and Recommendations; ORDERED that Plaintiffs objections are OVERRULED. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and this Social Security action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that any motion not previously ruled on is DENIED. (klc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
SHOSHANA M. ROGERS
vs.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv830
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her findings,
conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of this action, has been presented for
consideration.
The Report and Recommendation recommends that the decision of the
Commissioner be affirmed and that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff filed
written objections on March 22, 2016.
Having made a de novo review of the objections filed by Plaintiff, the Court finds that the
findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct and Plaintiff’s
objections are without merit.
There is substantial evidence in the record supporting the
Commissioner’s decision. Plaintiff has not shown a due process violation warranting remand or
that the ALJ failed to apply the correct legal standards. The findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge are, therefore, adopted as those of the Court. It is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.
The decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED and this Social Security action is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. It is further
1
ORDERED that any motion not previously ruled on is DENIED.
SIGNED this 29th day of March, 2016.
____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?