Alvarez v. Social Security Administration

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION re: 7 Memorandum and Recommendation. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (D.E. 6) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JOE NOEL ALVAREZ,
Plaintiff,
VS.
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

February 14, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-00104
§
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 13, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington issued
her “Memorandum and Recommendation” (D.E. 7), recommending that this action be
dismissed as time-barred. 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.
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
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. 7), 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, Defendant’s Motion to
1/2

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (D.E. 6) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
ORDERED this 14th day of February, 2017.
___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2