Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hembree v. Colvin

United States District Court, Sixth Circuit

August 30, 2013

DAVID HEMBREE, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN COLVIN, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

ORDER

GREGORY F. VAN TATENHOVE, District Judge.

The Plaintiff, David Hembree, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to challenge a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner"), who denied his application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). [R. 1.] Consistent with the Court's practice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins for the issuance of a report and recommendation containing proposed findings and recommendations. [R. 11.]

On July 12, 2013, Magistrate Judge Atkins filed his Report and Recommendation. [R. 12.] In his Report, the Magistrate Judge considered and rejected each of Hembree's arguments. [ Id. ] Specifically, Judge Atkins found that the administrative law judge ("ALJ") supplied "good reasons" for the weight he assigned the opinions of Hembree's treating physician. [ Id. at 6-8.] Judge Atkins also found that the ALJ gave sufficient consideration to the cumulative effect of Hembree's impairments. [ Id . at 9]. Further, Judge Atkins concluded that Hembree failed to assert the factual basis or support for his claim that the ALJ failed to investigate the facts and develop the arguments both for and against granting benefits. [ Id . at 9-10]. Although the parties were given fourteen (14) days from the filing of the Report and Recommendation to file objections [ id. at 11], neither party objected.

Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to "review... a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard...." See Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters , 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [R. 12] is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court;

(2) The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 8] is DENIED;

(3) The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 10] is GRANTED; and

(4) Judgment in favor of the Defendant will be entered contemporaneously herewith.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.