Holder v. Astrue

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

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division at Lexington

Date published: Apr 7, 2008

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-237-KKC (E.D. Ky. Apr. 7, 2008)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-237-KKC.

April 7, 2008

OPINION AND ORDER

KAREN CALDWELL, District Judge

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Patty Holder's Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 8], Defendant Commissioner Astrue's Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 11], and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [R. 13].

Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to challenge Defendant's final decision to deny Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. 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 March 13, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed his Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge found that Defendant had failed to comply with the social security regulations in rejecting a treating-source opinion. As such, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and Defendant'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 28 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 (6^th 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.

Accordingly, the Court, being sufficiently advised, HEREBY ORDERS that:

(1) The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED;

(2) The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED;

(3) The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court; and

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