Opinion
EP-22-CV-00353-DCG-LS
03-27-2024
ZOROASTRO R., Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,[1] Defendant.
ORDEER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND AFFIRMING COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
DAVID C. GUADERRAMA, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
On February 20, 2024, U.S. Magistrate Judge Leon Schydlower issued a Report and Recommendation advising the Court to affirm the Commissioner's decision to deny Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.
After Judge Schydlower issued the Report and Recommendation that is the subject of this Order, the Senate confirmed his nomination to become a U.S. District Judge.
R. & R., ECF No. 16.
Plaintiff had until March 5, 2024 to object to Judge Schydlower's Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff didn't file any objections by the deadline. Thus, rather than reviewing the Report and Recommendation de novo, the Court will review it solely to determine whether it's clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
See W.D. TEX. L.R. APP'X C, RULE 4(b) (“Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report . . . within 14 days after being served with a copy thereof.”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (similar).
See, e.g., Magdalena Garcia v. Sessions, No. 1:18-CV-59, 2018 WL 6732889, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2018) (“Where no party objects to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court is not required to perform a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's determination, but need only review it to decide whether the Report and Recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and determined that it's neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
The Court therefore ACCEPTS the “Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge” (ECF No. 16) in its entirety and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision.
The Court shall issue a final judgment separately.
So ORDERED and SIGNED.