Christine Elizabeth Winne v. Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. Texas

Christine Elizabeth Winne v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedFebruary 6, 2026

Docket2:24-cv-00097

StatusUnknown

This text of Christine Elizabeth Winne v. Commissioner of Social Security (Christine Elizabeth Winne v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Christine Elizabeth Winne v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 06, 2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION CHRISTINE ELIZABETH WINNE, § § Plaintiff, § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00097 § COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, § § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 11). The M&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's construed motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 8), grant Defendant’s construed cross motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 9), and dismiss this case. (D.E. 11, p. 1). Plaintiff filed written objections to the M&R. (D.E. 12). When a party objects to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C). A party must point out with particularity any alleged errors in the magistrate judge’s analysis. Pelko v. Perales, No. 23-CV-00339, 2024 WL 1972896, at *1 (S.D. Tex. May 3, 2024) (Ramos, J.). Objections that merely re-urge arguments contained in the original briefing are not proper and will not be considered. Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, “[f]rivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 842 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 1/3

(5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to expeditiously adopt a magistrate’s recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731-32 (Sth Cir. 1994) (permitting a district court to adopt a magistrate’s recommendation one day after receiving it and before objections were filed), the Fifth Circuit has also authorized district courts to adopt a magistrate’s recommendation without providing detailed analysis. See Habets v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 363 F.3d 378, 382 (Sth Cir. 2004) (affirming a district court’s two-sentence order adopting a magistrate’s recommendation for summary judgment).!

' Specifically, the Fifth Circuit stated that “because the magistrate here made only legal findings on a summary judgment motion, the district court was permitted to issue an abbreviated order adopting [the recommendation].” Habets, 363 F.3d at 382. As this case is at the summary judgment stage, the Court finds that the principles animating the Fifth Circuit’s decision apply here: (1) “the record was available to the district court a full 20 days before the court issued its order”; (2) “the magistrate here made no involved findings of fact . . .”; (3) “the magistrate here provided a thorough analysis to support its recommendation”; and (4) “the district court had a complete record of the magistrate’s proceedings.” See id. (citations omitted). 2/3

Il. Conclusion Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the M&R, the record, the applicable law, and having made a de novo review of the portions of the M&R to which Plaintiff's objections are directed, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, (D.E. 12), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the M&R, (D-E. 11). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's construed motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 8), and GRANTS Defendant’s construed motion for summary judgment, (D.E.9). The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and the above-entitled action is DISMISSED. The Court will enter a final judgment separately. | / SO ORDERED. sf (Uh DAN . MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas February Cte, 2026

3/3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 06, 2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION CHRISTINE ELIZABETH WINNE, § § Plaintiff, § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00097 § COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, § § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 11). The M&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's construed motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 8), grant Defendant’s construed cross motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 9), and dismiss this case. (D.E. 11, p. 1). Plaintiff filed written objections to the M&R. (D.E. 12). When a party objects to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C). A party must point out with particularity any alleged errors in the magistrate judge’s analysis. Pelko v. Perales, No. 23-CV-00339, 2024 WL 1972896, at *1 (S.D. Tex. May 3, 2024) (Ramos, J.). Objections that merely re-urge arguments contained in the original briefing are not proper and will not be considered. Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, “[f]rivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 842 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 1/3

(5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to expeditiously adopt a magistrate’s recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731-32 (Sth Cir. 1994) (permitting a district court to adopt a magistrate’s recommendation one day after receiving it and before objections were filed), the Fifth Circuit has also authorized district courts to adopt a magistrate’s recommendation without providing detailed analysis. See Habets v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 363 F.3d 378, 382 (Sth Cir. 2004) (affirming a district court’s two-sentence order adopting a magistrate’s recommendation for summary judgment).!

' Specifically, the Fifth Circuit stated that “because the magistrate here made only legal findings on a summary judgment motion, the district court was permitted to issue an abbreviated order adopting [the recommendation].” Habets, 363 F.3d at 382. As this case is at the summary judgment stage, the Court finds that the principles animating the Fifth Circuit’s decision apply here: (1) “the record was available to the district court a full 20 days before the court issued its order”; (2) “the magistrate here made no involved findings of fact . . .”; (3) “the magistrate here provided a thorough analysis to support its recommendation”; and (4) “the district court had a complete record of the magistrate’s proceedings.” See id. (citations omitted). 2/3

Il. Conclusion Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the M&R, the record, the applicable law, and having made a de novo review of the portions of the M&R to which Plaintiff's objections are directed, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, (D.E. 12), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the M&R, (D-E. 11). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's construed motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 8), and GRANTS Defendant’s construed motion for summary judgment, (D.E.9). The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and the above-entitled action is DISMISSED. The Court will enter a final judgment separately. | / SO ORDERED. sf (Uh DAN . MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas February Cte, 2026

3/3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Christine Elizabeth Winne v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christine-elizabeth-winne-v-commissioner-of-social-security-txsd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack