Idom v. Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. Mississippi

Idom v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedAugust 22, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-00064

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Idom v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D. Miss. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION

JARED IDOM PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-64-TBM-RPM

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY DEFENDANT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on submission of the Report and Recommendation [15] entered by United States Magistrate Robert P. Myers on July 8, 2025. The Plaintiff, Jared Idom, seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration denying his claim for disability insurance benefits. Upon finding that the Administrative Law Judge’s error in failing to properly evaluate the opinions of Dr. Criss Lott and Dr. Howard Katz was not harmless, Judge Myers recommends that this matter be remanded for further consideration. Neither the Commissioner of Social Security nor the Plaintiff have filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for filing an objection has expired. “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition (citations omitted); see Casas v. Aduddell, 404 F. App’x 879, 881 (5th Cir. 2010) (affirming district court’s dismissal of Section 1983 claims and stating that “[w]hen a party fails timely to file written objections to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation, that party is barred from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed findings and conclusions which the district court accepted, except for plain error”) (citing Douglass v.United Serv. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)); Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1430 (affirming district court’s grant of summary judgment). The Court finds that Judge Myers’ Report and Recommendation is neither

clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Report and Recommendation will be adopted as the opinion of the Court. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Report and Recommendation [15] entered by United States Magistrate Robert P. Myers on July 8, 2025, is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is REMANDED for

further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation [15]. This, the 22nd day of August, 2025. ____________________________ TAYLOR B. McNEEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION

JARED IDOM PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-64-TBM-RPM

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY DEFENDANT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on submission of the Report and Recommendation [15] entered by United States Magistrate Robert P. Myers on July 8, 2025. The Plaintiff, Jared Idom, seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration denying his claim for disability insurance benefits. Upon finding that the Administrative Law Judge’s error in failing to properly evaluate the opinions of Dr. Criss Lott and Dr. Howard Katz was not harmless, Judge Myers recommends that this matter be remanded for further consideration. Neither the Commissioner of Social Security nor the Plaintiff have filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for filing an objection has expired. “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition (citations omitted); see Casas v. Aduddell, 404 F. App’x 879, 881 (5th Cir. 2010) (affirming district court’s dismissal of Section 1983 claims and stating that “[w]hen a party fails timely to file written objections to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation, that party is barred from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed findings and conclusions which the district court accepted, except for plain error”) (citing Douglass v.United Serv. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)); Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1430 (affirming district court’s grant of summary judgment). The Court finds that Judge Myers’ Report and Recommendation is neither

clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Report and Recommendation will be adopted as the opinion of the Court. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Report and Recommendation [15] entered by United States Magistrate Robert P. Myers on July 8, 2025, is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is REMANDED for

further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation [15]. This, the 22nd day of August, 2025. ____________________________ TAYLOR B. McNEEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Idom v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/idom-v-commissioner-of-social-security-mssd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack