Opinion
6:19-CV-00505-ADA-JCM
01-26-2022
TONYA A. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. ECF No. 24. The Report recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement (ECF No. 19) and to affirm the final decision of the administrative law judge (styled as a Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 18). The Report and Recommendation was filed on June 16, 2021.
A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Plaintiff filed objections nearly six months later, on January 3, 2022. ECF No. 31. But Plaintiff has good cause for delay. Plaintiff's counsel passed away. ECF No. 25. This prompted Plaintiff to file a motion for extension of time, which this Court granted. ECF No. 26.
Thus, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18), Plaintiffs motion to supplement (ECF No. 19), the briefing (ECF Nos. 21, 23), the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 24), the Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 31), and the applicable laws.
Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation due to “evidence overlooked and or not provided.” ECF No. 31 at 1. But the Court cannot now consider any evidence that was “not provided” previously. All evidence should have been submitted during the briefing process. Plaintiff does not specifically identify which evidence was “overlooked, ” and this Court is unable to find any overlooked evidence. Plaintiffs Objections to the Report and Recommendation then recites various facts related to the case but does not explain why these facts impact the analysis in the Report and Recommendation. Id. at 1-2.
After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation should be adopted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Manske, ECF No. 24, is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs objections are OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) is DENIED, and the final decision of the administrative law judge is AFFIRMED in accordance with the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Supplement (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.