Opinion
Civil Action 9:22-CV-144
03-03-2023
STEVEN S. CAMERON, Plaintiff v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Christine L Stetson UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Plaintiff, Steven S. Cameron (“Cameron”), filed a Complaint in this case requesting judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration with respect to her application for disability-based benefits. This action is before the undersigned magistrate judge for review, hearing if necessary, and submission of a report with recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law. Now pending before the court is the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Dismiss this case. (Doc. #13.)
General Order 05-06 refers civil proceedings involving appeals from decisions of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration to magistrate judges serving the divisions where the cases are filed. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2009) and E.D. Tex. Civ. R. CV-72 for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
When, as here, an Answer to a Complaint has been filed, an action may be dismissed at the Plaintiff's request only by court order and on terms that the court considers proper. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2). The Plaintiff desires to no longer pursue her appeal of the administrative decision denying her disability-based social security benefits. The Defendant is not opposed. Consequently, the undersigned recommends that the court dismiss this case without prejudice.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), each party to this action has the right to file objections to this report and recommendation. Objections to this report must: (1) be in writing, (2) specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the party objects, and (3) be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) (2009); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). A party who objects to this report is entitled to a de novo determination by the United States district judge of those proposed findings and recommendations to which a specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2009); FED R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).
A party's failure to file specific, written objections to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in this report, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of this report, bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by the United States district judge of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 27677 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of any such findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the United States district judge, see Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, at 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).