Coleman v. Astrue

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION re: 20 Memorandum and Recommendation. Plaintiff's case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for reconsideration pursuant to this ORDER.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
SENIADA B. COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
VS.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-354

ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is the Complaint appealing the final administrative
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security on Plaintiff’s claim for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income (D.E. 1).

On August 8, 2013,

United States Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation (D.E. 20), recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be vacated
and that this matter be remanded for reconsideration.
The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been filed and the
time to do so has expired.
When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and

1/2

recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005)
(citing Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 20), and all other relevant
documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s
determination that Plaintiff is not disabled is VACATED and Plaintiff’s case is
REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for reconsideration pursuant to this
ORDER.
ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2013.

___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2