Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 13-00220-BAJ-SCR
01-28-2015
CHARLES EDWARD DYE v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
RULING AND ORDER
On January 9, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger issued a Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), recommending that the Court affirm the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's decision redetermining that Plaintiff Charles Edward Dye ("Dye") is not entitled to disability benefits and/or supplemental security income, and dismissing Dye's appeal. (Doc. 16.)
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation specifically notified Dye that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), he had fourteen (14) days from the date he was served with the Report and Recommendation to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set forth therein. (Doc. 16, p. 1.) A review of the record indicates that Dye failed to submit written objections.
Having carefully considered the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is correct, and hereby adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's decision redetermining that Plaintiff Charles Edward Dye is not entitled to disability benefits and/or supplemental security income is AFFIRMED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED, with prejudice.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 28th day of January, 2015.
/s/_________
BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA