Moore v. Astrue

Full title: KATHY MOORE, PLAINTIFF, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division Pikeville

Date published: May 12, 2008

Civil Action No. 07-204-HRW (E.D. Ky. May. 12, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 07-204-HRW.

May 12, 2008

ORDER

HENRY WILHOIT JR., District Judge

The Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to challenge a final decision of the Defendant that he was not entitled to disability insurance benefits or supplemental security income benefits. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and consistent with local practice this matter referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for consideration [Docket No. 12].

On April 25, 2008, United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins filed his Report and Recommendation concluding that the Defendant's decision to deny Plaintiff benefits is supported by substantial evidence [Docket No. 14]. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Atkins recommends that the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary judgment be overruled and the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be sustained.

On May 8, 2008, the Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation [Docket No. 15].

This Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation to which any objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c).

Having considered the Plaintiff's objections, the Court finds nothing therein which would call into question the Magistrate's findings. Rather, in his objections, Plaintiff essentially restates the arguments presented in his original motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the Plaintiff's objections will be overruled.

Having made a de novo determination, the Court is in agreement with the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation.

Accordingly, the Court, being otherwise fully and sufficiently advised, HEREBY ORDERS that:

(1) the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation [Docket No. 14] is ADOPTED as and for the opinion of the Court;

(2) the Plaintiff's objections [Docket No. 15] are OVERRULED;

(2) the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 11] is OVERRULED; and

(3) the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 13]is SUSTAINED.

A judgment in favor of the Defendant will be entered contemporaneously herewith.