Baldwin v. Astrue

Full title: VERNON BALDWIN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

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

Date published: Dec 1, 2009

Civil No. 08-395-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Dec. 1, 2009)

Opinion

Civil No. 08-395-GFVT.

December 1, 2009

ORDER

GREGORY TATENHOVE, District Judge

The Plaintiff, Vernon Baldwin, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to challenge a final decision of the Defendant Commissioner denying his application for period of disability and disability insurance benefits. [R. 2.] Consistent with the Court's practice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins for the issuance of a report and recommendation. [R. 12.]

On November 13, 2009, Magistrate Judge Atkins filed his Report and Recommendation (R R). [R. 13.] Therein, Judge Atkins noted that all but one of the Plaintiff's claims were waived because they failed to include developed legal argument or citations to the record, regulations, or applicable case law. Judge Atkins did address the Plaintiff's remaining argument concerning the ALJ's rejection of treating physicians' opinions. Discussing the evidence in the record, the ALJ's findings, and relevant regulations and case law, he determined that Plaintiff's argument lacked merit. Thus, Judge Atkins ultimately concluded that the ALJ's opinion was indeed supported by substantial evidence. Although the parties were given ten (10) days from the filing of the Report and Recommendation to file objections, neither party objected.

Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to "review . . . a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard. . . ." See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6^th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [R. 13] is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court;

(2) The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 10] is DENIED;

(3) The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 11] is GRANTED; and

(4) Judgment in favor of the Defendant will be entered contemporaneously herewith.