From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Earle v. Barnhart

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division
Jun 21, 2006
CAUSE NO. A-05-CA-470-LY (W.D. Tex. Jun. 21, 2006)

Opinion

CAUSE NO. A-05-CA-470-LY.

June 21, 2006


ORDER


Before the Court is the above-entitled and numbered cause of action, which was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings and recommendations (Clerk's Document No. 15). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Rule l(e) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, as amended.

Plaintiff Timothy Earle contends that he is unable to work due to his HIV-positive status, depression, and anxiety, and filed claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34; 1381-1383f. Following a hearing on Earle's claims, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found Earle was not disabled and therefore was not entitled to disability insurance benefits. Earle appealed this decision to the Social Security Administration Appeals Council and submitted additional evidence for review. The Appeals Council denied Earl's request for review of the ALJ's decision on April 15, 2005 and Earle brought this action on June 22, 2005 claiming the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration erroneously denied him disability insurance benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

On May 5, 2006, the magistrate judge signed his Report and Recommendation, which recommends that this Court affirm the final decision of the Commissioner and enter judgment in favor of Earle. (Clerk's Document No. 15). Earle timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, contending that the magistrate judge erred in applying the standard of review and reweighed the evidence in determining that the ALJ properly concluded that Earle can maintain employment. (Clerk's Document No. 22). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); F.R.C.P. Rule 72(b) (A party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge within ten days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, thereby securing a de novo review by the district court.)

In light of Earle's objections, this Court has undertaken a de novo review of the entire case file in this cause. Reviewing the entire record, this Court finds that the Recommendation filed by the magistrate judge is correct and should be approved and accepted by the Court for the reasons stated therein.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Earle's Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation filed June 6, 2006, (Clerk's Document No. 22) are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate signed May 5, 2006, (Clerk's Document No. 15) is APPROVED and ACCEPTED by this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the ALJ, which became the final decision of the Commissioner, is AFFIRMED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that any further relief not expressly granted is DENIED.


Summaries of

Earle v. Barnhart

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division
Jun 21, 2006
CAUSE NO. A-05-CA-470-LY (W.D. Tex. Jun. 21, 2006)
Case details for

Earle v. Barnhart

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY EARLE, PLAINTIFF, v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF THE…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division

Date published: Jun 21, 2006

Citations

CAUSE NO. A-05-CA-470-LY (W.D. Tex. Jun. 21, 2006)