Eric Heath v. Scott T. Morris, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: December 21, 2025
• Docket: 4:22-cv-00318
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED December 22, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

ERIC HEATH, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO, 4:22-CV-00318 § SCOTT T. MORRIS, ef ai., § § Defendants. § ORDER Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Christina Bryan’s Memorandum and Recommendation filed on September 30, 2025 (Doc. #28), as well as Plaintiff Eric Heath’s Objections filed on October 8, 2025 (Doc. #29) and October 30, 2025 (Doc. #30).! The Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions are reviewed de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C, § 636(b)(1); United States vy. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989). Having reviewed Plaintiff's arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation as its Order. In this case, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s (the “Commissioner”) denial of his application for disability benefits. On March 12, 2025, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the grounds that his “medical records prove that [he has] had a disability.” Doc. #21 at 1. The Commissioner filed a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on

The Court notes that the parties were afforded fourteen days from the entry of the Memorandum and Recommendation, or until October 14, 2025, to file written objections. As such, Plaintiff's Objections filed on October 30, 2025 are untimely. However, the Court finds that, even considering the late-filed Objections, the Memorandum and Recommendation should be adopted.

April 14, 2025. Doc, #22. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment be denied and Commissioner’s Cross Motion be granted. Doc. #28. Plaintiff objects to the Memorandum and Recommendation because he believes the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) who reviewed his benefit decision was biased and wrong to conclude he was not disabled. As the Magistrate Judge notes, however, the “standard of review for social security disability claims is exceedingly deferential.” Doc. #28 at 6 (quoting Taylor vy. Astrue, 706 F.3d 600, 603 (Sth Cir. 2012)). Here, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ’s determination “is supported by substantial evidence and is not the result of legal error.” Id. at 10-12. As such, Plaintiff's objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation are overruled. In conclusion, the Court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. #28) as its Order. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #21) is DENIED, the Commissioner’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc, #22) is GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED. Accordingly, this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is so ORDERED. lh DEC 2 1 2025 Date The Honorable Alfred H. Bennett United States District Judge