Summary
finding substantial evidence supported ALJ's decision to discount claimant's credibility because "the documented effectiveness of [the claimant's] treatment was inconsistent with the debilitating degree of limitations alleged"
Summary of this case from Grooms v. SaulOpinion
Case No. 4:14-cv-35
08-24-2015
RICKY L. ROBERTSON, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Magistrate Judge Steger
ORDER
On July 9, 2015, United States Magistrate William B. Carter filed his Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Carter recommended that (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) be denied; (2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) be granted; and (3) this action be dismissed.
Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a review of the Report and Recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Carter's well-reasoned conclusions.
Magistrate Judge Carter specifically advised Plaintiff that he had 14 days in which to object to the Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive his right to appeal. (Doc. 22 at 22 n.5); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (noting that "[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"). Even taking into account the three additional days for service provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), the period in which Plaintiff could timely file any objections has now expired.
Accordingly:
• The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Carter's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations (Doc. 22) pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b);
• Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) is DENIED;
• Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) is GRANTED;
• The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED;
• This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED this 24th day of August, 2015.
/s/ Harry S . Mattice, Jr.
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE