From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bridges v. Saul

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
Jul 9, 2021
4:20-CV-89-DMB-DAS (N.D. Miss. Jul. 9, 2021)

Opinion

4:20-CV-89-DMB-DAS

07-09-2021

FELECIA BRIDGES PLAINTIFF v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security DEFENDANT


ORDER

DEBRA M. BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On June 21, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in this appeal by Felecia Bridges from an unfavorable decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Doc. #21. The R&R recommends that the decision be affirmed. Id. at 6. No objections to the R&R were filed.

“With respect to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections were raised, the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no plain error on the face of the record.” Gauthier v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 644 F.Supp.2d 824, 828 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (citing Douglass v. UnitedServs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)). The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no plain error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the R&R [21] is ADOPTED as the order of the Court. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Bridges v. Saul

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
Jul 9, 2021
4:20-CV-89-DMB-DAS (N.D. Miss. Jul. 9, 2021)
Case details for

Bridges v. Saul

Case Details

Full title:FELECIA BRIDGES PLAINTIFF v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division

Date published: Jul 9, 2021

Citations

4:20-CV-89-DMB-DAS (N.D. Miss. Jul. 9, 2021)

Citing Cases

Walsh v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

(“Stating that a provider's records ‘contained no objective findings,' to support an opinion, without any…

Sherman v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

It violates not only the Commissioner's regulatory mandate, but the statutory mandate that SSA explain…