Davidson v. Astrue

Full title: PATTY S. DAVIDSON PLAINTIFF v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

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

Date published: Jun 11, 2008

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-254-DLB (E.D. Ky. Jun. 11, 2008)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-254-DLB.

June 11, 2008

OPINION AND ORDER

DAVID BUNNING, District Judge

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #14), Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #15), and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #17).

Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to challenge Defendant's final decision to deny Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. Consistent with local practice, this matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). On May 20, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed his Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge rejected Plaintiff's argument that the Administrative Law Judge did not properly evaluate her complaints of pain, and instead found that substantial evidence supported the Administrative Law Judge's determination that Plaintiff is not disabled. As such, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied.

Neither party filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Although this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, see U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Moreover, a party who fails to file objections with the court to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation waives the right to appeal. See Wright v. Holbrook, 794 F.2d 1152, 1154-55 (6th Cir. 1986). Nevertheless, the Court, having examined the record and having made a de novo determination, is in agreement with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in this case.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #17) is hereby adopted as the Opinion of this Court;

(2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #15) is hereby granted;

(3) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #14) is hereby denied; and,

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