Manning v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
Filing
11
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING Magistrate Judge's 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION denying 6 Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner, granting 7 Motion for Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 9/19/2012. (pam)
U.S. DIS';"
DISTRICT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
JON MANNING,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
F
.
2Ut2 SEP 19 AM to: 20
CLERK
Case No. 5:11-cv-253
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(Docs. 6, '7, and lO)
This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's August
17,2012 Report and Recommendation (R & R) in the above-captioned matter. Neither
party has objected to the R & R, and the deadline for doing so has expired.
A district judge must make a de novo determination of those portions ofa
magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which an objection is made. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I); Cullen v. United States, 194 F.3d 401,405 (2d Cir.
1999). The district judge may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord
Cullen, 194 F.3d at 405. A district judge, however, is not required to review the factual
or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of a report and
recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
150 (1985). When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there
is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. See
Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F .2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied,
419 U.S. 879 (1974).
In his twenty-two page R & R, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the factual
record and the competing motions. He also reviewed the March 21,2001 decision of
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Paul Martin, concluding that the ALJ properly
determined that Plaintiff Jon Manning was not disabled under the Social Security Act
from his alleged disability onset date of September 13,2006 through the date of the
decision. The Magistrate Judge thus recommended that the court DENY the Plaintiffs
motion to reverse (Doc. 6) and GRANT the Government's motion to affirm (Doc. 7.)
The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions. For the foregoing
reasons, the court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R & R as the court's Opinion
and Order in this case and hereby DENIES Plaintiffs motion to reverse (Doc. 6) and
GRANTS the Government's motion to affirm (Doc. 7.)
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this
I '! ~y of September, 2012.
~e
United States District Court
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?