Summary
This is a United States District Court order adopting a Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation in a civil action. The court reviewed the record and found no clear error or legal contravention, thereby adopting the magistrate's recommendation to affirm the Commissioner's administrative determination. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence
- Whether the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation should be affirmed absent clear error
- Whether plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be denied and defendant’s granted
Holdings
- The administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.
- The magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and is therefore adopted.
- Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied; Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted; the case is dismissed with prejudice.
Key quotations
“When no objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).” (864 F.2d at 1221)
“The Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety.” (at 1, 17)
Factual background
Natasha Thompson sought Social Security benefits that were denied by the Social Security Administration. Martin O'Malley, as the Commissioner, upheld the denial. An administrative law judge issued a decision, after which both parties filed summary judgment motions.
Procedural history
The parties filed motions for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued a memorandum and recommendation finding the administrative law judge's decision supported by substantial evidence, denying plaintiff's motion and granting defendant's. No objection was filed. The district court adopted the M&R.