Canales v. Saul

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT November 03, 2021 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION DELIA RIOS CANALES, § Plaintiff, . VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-168 ANDREW SAUL, Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R). (D.E. 19). The M&R recommends that the Court grant Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (D.E. 16), deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (D.E. 17), and reverse and remand for further consideration the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits. (D.E. 19, p. 27). The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CIV. A. H-14-2700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015). Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding 1/2

that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 19). Accordingly: (1) The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (D.E. 16). (2) The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (D.E. 17). Court REVERSES and REMANDS for further consideration Defendant’s denial of disability benefits. A final judgment will be entered separately.

SO ORDERED. C | DAVID S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas November jst 2021

2/2