Opinion
CIVIL 6:22-CV-00048
08-29-2023
PATRICIA J. NEUMANN, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DREW B. TIPTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the July 10, 2023 Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock. (Dkt. No. 13). Judge Neurock made findings and conclusions and recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 11), be denied. (See Dkt. No. 13).
The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed two objections. (Dkt. No. 14). First, Plaintiff argues that she presented medical evidence from her treating physician and from an examining physician that shows she meets the criteria of Listing 12.06. (Id. at 1-2). Second, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ refuted the medical evidence from Plaintiff's physicians without substantial evidence. (Id. at 1-3).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After conducting this de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the M&R to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the M&R and adopts it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ordered that:
(1) Magistrate Judge Neurock's M&R, (Dkt. No. 13), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court; and
(2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 11), is DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.