From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hammonds v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Greeneville
Aug 2, 2011
Case No. 2:10-cv-121 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 2, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 2:10-cv-121.

August 2, 2011


ORDER


United States Magistrate Susan K. Lee filed her Report and Recommendation [Court Doc. 15] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) on July 22, 2011. Plaintiff filed a timely Objection [Court Doc. 16].

The Court has reviewed de novo those portion of Magistrate Judge Lee's Report and Recommendation to which an objection has been made. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 72(b). The Court finds that Plaintiff's objections raise no new arguments but are simply a reargument of issues previously raised on summary judgment which were fully addressed in the Report and Recommendation. The Court finds that further analysis of these same arguments would be merely cumulative and is unwarranted in light of Magistrate Judge Lee's well-reasoned and well-supported Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lee's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b). Plaintiff's Objection [Court Doc. 16] is OVERRULED. The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Court Doc. 9] is DENIED, the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [Court Doc. 13] is GRANTED, and the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.

A separate Judgment will enter.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hammonds v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Greeneville
Aug 2, 2011
Case No. 2:10-cv-121 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 2, 2011)
Case details for

Hammonds v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:PENNY HAMMONDS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Greeneville

Date published: Aug 2, 2011

Citations

Case No. 2:10-cv-121 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 2, 2011)