Pena v. Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. Texas

Pena v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedMarch 13, 2020

Docket7:19-cv-00005

StatusUnknown

This text of Pena v. Commissioner of Social Security (Pena 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

Pena v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D. Tex. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 13, 2020 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk MCALLEN DIVISION

ANA J. PENA, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:19-CV-00005 § ANDREW SAUL, § Commissioner of the Social Security § Administration §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Plaintiff Ana J. Pena’s appeal of the Commissioner’s determination that she is not entitled to receive Disability Insurance Benefits or Supplemental Security Income. The appeal was referred to the Magistrate Court for a Report and Recommendation. On December 26, 2019, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff’s request to amend her complaint be GRANTED, that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be DENIED, that the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment be GRANTED, that the Commissioner’s decision be AFFIRMED, and that this case be DISMISSED. Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the Magistrate Court’s Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), the Court has made a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objections have been made. As to those portions to which no objections have been made, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has reviewed the report for clear error.1 Having thus reviewed the record in this case, the parties’ filings, and the applicable law, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to amend her complaint is GRANTED; thus, the constitutional challenge to the ALJ is considered. Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, the

1 As noted by the Fifth Circuit, “[t]he advisory committee’s note to Rule 72(b) states that, ‘[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’ ” Douglas v. United States Service Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 145, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983)) superseded by statute on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as stated in ACS Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, No. 11-40446, 2012 WL 1071216, at *7 n. 5 (5th Cir. April 2, 2012). Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED, and this case is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 13th day of March, 2020. War, 7 Micaela Alvarez United States District Judge

2/2

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 13, 2020 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk MCALLEN DIVISION

ANA J. PENA, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:19-CV-00005 § ANDREW SAUL, § Commissioner of the Social Security § Administration §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Plaintiff Ana J. Pena’s appeal of the Commissioner’s determination that she is not entitled to receive Disability Insurance Benefits or Supplemental Security Income. The appeal was referred to the Magistrate Court for a Report and Recommendation. On December 26, 2019, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff’s request to amend her complaint be GRANTED, that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be DENIED, that the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment be GRANTED, that the Commissioner’s decision be AFFIRMED, and that this case be DISMISSED. Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the Magistrate Court’s Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), the Court has made a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objections have been made. As to those portions to which no objections have been made, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has reviewed the report for clear error.1 Having thus reviewed the record in this case, the parties’ filings, and the applicable law, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to amend her complaint is GRANTED; thus, the constitutional challenge to the ALJ is considered. Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, the

1 As noted by the Fifth Circuit, “[t]he advisory committee’s note to Rule 72(b) states that, ‘[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’ ” Douglas v. United States Service Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 145, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983)) superseded by statute on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as stated in ACS Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, No. 11-40446, 2012 WL 1071216, at *7 n. 5 (5th Cir. April 2, 2012). Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED, and this case is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 13th day of March, 2020. War, 7 Micaela Alvarez United States District Judge

2/2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pena v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pena-v-commissioner-of-social-security-txsd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack