Moorman v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's recommendation, OVERRULES the Plaintiff's objections, and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's denial of benefits. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge's recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 07/10/15. (mll, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
REBECCA A. MOORMAN
CAROLYN L. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Plaintiff requests judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security Administration with respect to her application for disability-based benefits. The court
referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont,
Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge
submitted a report recommending that the court affirm the Commissioner’s decision.
The court considered the report and recommendation filed on June 18, 2015 (Doc. No. 29)
and the Plaintiff’s objections filed on July 2, 2015 (Doc. No. 30). A party who files timely written
objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination
of those findings or recommendations to which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(c) (Supp. IV 2011); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)-(3). “Parties filing objections must
specifically identify those findings [to which they object]. Frivolous, conclusive or general
objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410
n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,
79 F.3d 1412 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Moorman, who is represented by counsel, states in her objections that she “reasserts the
arguments in her Brief and Reply Brief.” (Doc. No. 30.) She then states the law for evaluating a
disability claim and lists three headings, which merely reiterate three issues from her previous brief.
She does not make any arguments under these headings other than that the magistrate judge
committed legal error in his analysis of each issue. These objections are general and conclusory and
need not be considered by the district court. See Nettles, 677 F.2d at 410. However, out of an
abundance of caution, the court has conducted a de novo review of the purported objections in
relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). After careful review, the
court concludes that the Plaintiff’s objections are without merit.
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s recommendation, OVERRULES
the Plaintiff’s objections, and AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. A final judgment
will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 10th day of July, 2015.
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?