Wallace v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

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

THOMAS KYLE WALLACE, JR. PLAINTIFF

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-100-KS-MTP

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY DEFENDANT

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on United States Magistrate LaKeysha Greer Isaac’s Report and Recommendation [14] entered on July 18, 2025, which recommends that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security be affirmed. [14] at p. 1. No objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. After due consideration of the Report and Recommendation [14], the record, and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [14] should be adopted as the finding of this Court and that this case should be dismissed with prejudice. I. BACKGROUND On May 10, 2021, Thomas Kyle Wallace, Jr. (“Wallace” or “Plaintiff”) filed an application with the Social Security Administration for Disability Insurance Benefits and/or Supplemental Security Income. [12] at ¶ 4. An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Wallace’s application at the initial and reconsideration levels. [1] at ¶ IV. After a timely request for hearing, the ALJ issued a final unfavorable decision, which was appealed, and a Notice of Appeals Council action was issued on May 6, 2024. Id. On July 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Complaint [1] in this Court against the Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ’s decision should be reversed because the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical opinion of the consulting mental health examiner, Dr. Jan Boggs. On July 18, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation [14], recommending that the final decision be affirmed. Judge Issac found that the ALJ’s decision details Dr. Boggs’s opinion at length and makes clear that the ALJ considered that opinion persuasive because, unlike the other medical opinions of record, it was consistent with all the evidence,

including Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Judge Issac went on to find it evident from the ALJ’s decision that she engaged in the requisite analysis sufficient to allow meaningful judicial review. Neither party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed. L.U. Civ. R. 72(a)(3). II. DISCUSSION Where no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). When there are no objections, the Court applies the “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review to the report

and recommendation. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). Having conducted this required review, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation [14] is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [14] as the opinion of this Court and further finds that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. III. CONCLUSION IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendation [14] of United States Magistrate LaKeysha Greer Issac entered in this case on July 18, 2025 is ADOPTED in its entirety as the finding of this Court. In so finding that the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, the Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED. IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with

this Order as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 5th day of August 2025.

/s/ Keith Starrett _________________ KEITH STARRETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE