Rolin v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Full title: SUZAN M. ROLIN, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division

Date published: Jul 10, 2024

No. EP-23-CV-288-KC-RFC (W.D. Tex. Jul. 10, 2024)

Opinion

EP-23-CV-288-KC-RFC

07-10-2024

SUZAN M. ROLIN, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

KATHLEEN CARDONE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

KATHLEEN CARDONE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On this day, the Court considered the case. Pursuant to Paragraph 2(c) of the Court's May 1, 2012, Standing Order, this case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda. On June 20, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 13, which recommended that the Court affirm the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits. Id. at 1, 13.

Parties have fourteen days from service of a Report and Recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge to file written objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).¹ Over fourteen days have elapsed since all parties were served with the R&R, and no objections have been filed.

1 Federal district courts conduct de novo review of those portions of a report and recommendation to which a party has objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge . . . shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made ....”).

When parties do not file written objections, courts apply a “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review to a report and recommendation. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (stating this standard of review “is appropriate only where there has been no objection to the magistrate's ruling”); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988) (“[A] party is not entitled to de novo review of a magistrate's finding and recommendations if objections are not raised in writing by the aggrieved party . . . after being served with a copy of the magistrate's report.”), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After reviewing the R&R, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and finds they are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, ECF No. 13, in its entirety, and ORDERS that the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.