From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cordell v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Winchester
Feb 2, 2010
Case No. 4:09-cv-19 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 2, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 4:09-cv-19.

February 2, 2010


ORDER


United States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter filed his report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) on January 13, 2010 [Court Doc. 17.] Neither party filed objections within the given 14 days.

After reviewing the record, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Carter's report and recommendation. The Court thus ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Carter's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b).

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Court Doc. 11] is DENIED. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Court Doc. 15] is GRANTED. The Commissioner's denial of benefits is AFFIRMED and the instant action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall close the case.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Cordell v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Winchester
Feb 2, 2010
Case No. 4:09-cv-19 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 2, 2010)
Case details for

Cordell v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:TERESA A. CORDELL, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Winchester

Date published: Feb 2, 2010

Citations

Case No. 4:09-cv-19 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 2, 2010)

Citing Cases

Starks v. Colvin

Hauser v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2014 WL 48554 at *9 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2014). See also, Cordell v. Astrue,…

Pena v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

Contrary to Pena's arguments, the ALJ did not mischaracterize the evidence. Thus, Pena appears to be asking…