Lynnelle Lamay-Poe v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

D. Nebraska

Lynnelle Lamay-Poe v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Nebraska·Decided March 25, 2026·No. 8:25-cv-00386·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

LYNNELLE LAMAY-POE,

Plaintiff, 8:25CV386

vs. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 15) recommending that Plaintiff’s request for an order to reverse and remand the Commissioner’s decision (Filing No. 8) be denied, and that the Commissioner’s Motion to Affirm the Commissioner’s Decision (Filing No. 10) be granted. The Findings and Recommendation, which was issued on March 9, 2026, advised the parties that failure to object within 14 days after being served with a copy of the Findings and Recommendation could constitute a waiver of any objection to the Findings and Recommendation. (Filing No. 15.) See also NECivR 72.2(a). As of today’s date, neither party has objected to the Findings and Recommendation.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) provides for de novo review of a Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations only when a party objects to them. Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (1991). Failure to object to a finding of fact in a Magistrate Judge's recommendation may be construed as a waiver of the right to object from the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the finding of fact. NECivR 72.2(f). The parties were expressly admonished that they had 14 days to object and that that failing to object “may constitute a waiver of any objection.” (Filing No. 15.) The failure to file an objection eliminates not only the need for de novo review, but any review by the Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 553 F.3d 609 (8th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation, and any objection is deemed waived.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 15) is adopted. 2. Plaintiff's request for an order to reverse and remand the Commissioner’s decision (Filing No. 8) is denied. 3. The Commissioner’s Motion to Affirm Commissioner’s Decision (Filing No. 10) is granted. 4. Plaintiff's Complaint (Filing No. 1) is dismissed. 5. Judgment will be entered by separate document.

Dated this 25" day of March, 2026. BY THE COURT:

Susan M. Bazis ye 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 DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

LYNNELLE LAMAY-POE,

Plaintiff, 8:25CV386

vs. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 15) recommending that Plaintiff’s request for an order to reverse and remand the Commissioner’s decision (Filing No. 8) be denied, and that the Commissioner’s Motion to Affirm the Commissioner’s Decision (Filing No. 10) be granted. The Findings and Recommendation, which was issued on March 9, 2026, advised the parties that failure to object within 14 days after being served with a copy of the Findings and Recommendation could constitute a waiver of any objection to the Findings and Recommendation. (Filing No. 15.) See also NECivR 72.2(a). As of today’s date, neither party has objected to the Findings and Recommendation.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) provides for de novo review of a Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations only when a party objects to them. Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (1991). Failure to object to a finding of fact in a Magistrate Judge's recommendation may be construed as a waiver of the right to object from the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the finding of fact. NECivR 72.2(f). The parties were expressly admonished that they had 14 days to object and that that failing to object “may constitute a waiver of any objection.” (Filing No. 15.) The failure to file an objection eliminates not only the need for de novo review, but any review by the Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 553 F.3d 609 (8th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation, and any objection is deemed waived.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 15) is adopted. 2. Plaintiff's request for an order to reverse and remand the Commissioner’s decision (Filing No. 8) is denied. 3. The Commissioner’s Motion to Affirm Commissioner’s Decision (Filing No. 10) is granted. 4. Plaintiff's Complaint (Filing No. 1) is dismissed. 5. Judgment will be entered by separate document.

Dated this 25" day of March, 2026. BY THE COURT:

Susan M. Bazis ye United States District Judge

Lynnelle Lamay-Poe v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, (D. Neb. 2026).

Pincite

Lynnelle Lamay-Poe v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Lynnelle Lamay-Poe v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related