Summary
finding that the new evidence showing a new diagnosis of macular edema did not dilute the record when there was no evidence that such impairment impacted the claimant's ability to work
Summary of this case from Freeman v. BerryhillOpinion
ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-473-Y
05-01-2014
QUENTIN NEELY POPE v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
On April 15, 2014, the United States magistrate judge issued his proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in the above-styled and numbered cause and gave all parties until April 29 to serve and file with the Court written objections to his decision. No written objections have been received from either party. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996). As a result, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), de novo review is not required. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error and has found none.
Thus, after consideration of this matter, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge should be and are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of this Court. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the decision of the commissioner is AFFIRMED, and Plaintiff shall take nothing by way of this claims, which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to their refiling.
__________
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE