Chaplin v. Colvin

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Thus, after consideration of this matter, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge should be and are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of this Court. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED, for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. (Ordered by Senior Judge Terry R Means on 4/28/2016) (hth)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION REBEKAH CHAPLIN § § VS. § § CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting § Commissioner of Social Security § ACTION NO. 4:14-CV-935-Y ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS On March 17, 2016, the United States magistrate judge issued his proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in the abovestyled and numbered cause. An order issued that same day gave all parties fourteen days thereafter to serve and file with the Court written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge. No written objections have been received from either party. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996). As a result, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), de novo review is not required. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error and has found none. Thus, after consideration of this matter, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge should be and are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of this Court. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED, for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. SIGNED April 28, 2016. ____________________________ TERRY R. MEANS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS -- Page Solo TRM/chr

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?