Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

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

SHELITHA VANESSA THOMAS PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-123-TBM-MTP

COMMISSION 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 Judge Michael T. Parker on January 11, 2022. The Plaintiff, Shelitha Vanessa Thomas, seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration denying her claim for disability insurance benefits. The Commission of Social Security moved to affirm the decision. See [13]. Judge Parker recommends that the Motion to Affirm the Commissioner’s Decision [13] be granted in part and denied in part, and that this matter be remanded for further consideration. On January 25, 2022, the Commission of Social Security filed a Notice of No Response [15], declining to object to the Report and Recommendation. Similarly, the Plaintiff has not 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 clams 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 Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)); Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1430 (affirming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 the Magistrate Judge’s 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 the Report and Recommendation [15] entered by United States Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on January

11, 2022, 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 25th day of February, 2022. ____________________________ TAYLOR B. McNEEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE