From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Melanie A.S. v. Kijakazi

United States District Court, District of Columbia
May 27, 2022
1:21-cv-00185 (TNM) (D.D.C. May. 27, 2022)

Opinion

1:21-cv-00185 (TNM)

05-27-2022

MELANIE A.S., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, [1] Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TREVOR N. MCFADDEN, U.S.D.J.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey, docketed on May 12, 2022. See ECF No. 23. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), a party may serve and file specific written objections to such a Report and Recommendation within 14 days of being served. That time expired on May 26, 2022, without any objections being filed.

Having carefully reviewed the findings and conclusions contained in the Report and Recommendation and having considered Magistrate Judge Harvey's recommended disposition of the Plaintiff's claim for Social Security benefits, the Court will adopt in full the Report and Recommendation as the findings and conclusions of this Court.

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the absence of objections, and the entire record, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted by the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant's [19] Motion for Judgment of Affirmance is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's [16] Motion for Judgment of Reversal, is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

The Clerk of Court shall close the case. This is a final, appealable Order.


Summaries of

Melanie A.S. v. Kijakazi

United States District Court, District of Columbia
May 27, 2022
1:21-cv-00185 (TNM) (D.D.C. May. 27, 2022)
Case details for

Melanie A.S. v. Kijakazi

Case Details

Full title:MELANIE A.S., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, District of Columbia

Date published: May 27, 2022

Citations

1:21-cv-00185 (TNM) (D.D.C. May. 27, 2022)

Citing Cases

Mark B. v. O'Malley

However, the Court does not remand on this ground because even if the ALJ's stated reason for discounting…