Wells v. Astrue

Full title: RAYMOND WELLS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division London

Date published: Nov 12, 2009

Civil No. 09-78-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Nov. 12, 2009)

Opinion

Civil No. 09-78-GFVT.

November 12, 2009

ORDER

GREGORY TATENHOVE, District Judge

The Plaintiff, Raymond Wells, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 5 U.S.C. § 706 to challenge a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner"), who denied his application for supplemental security income. [R. 2.] Consistent with the Court's practice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins for the issuance of a report and recommendation containing the proposed findings and recommendations. [R. 13.]

On October 22, 2009, Magistrate Judge Atkins filed his Report and Recommendation. [R. 14.] In his Report, the Magistrate Judge considered and rejected each of Wells's three arguments. Specifically, Judge Atkins concluded that the ALJ's credibility determination complied with social security regulations, and was supported by substantial evidence. [Id. at 4-6.] Judge Atkins further concluded that the ALJ properly considered the combined effects of Wells's impairments, and that the limitations contained in the ALJ's hypothetical question to the vocational expert were supported by substantial evidence. [Id. at 7-8.] Although the parties were given ten (10) days from the filing of the Report and Recommendation to file objections [Id. at 8-9], neither party objected.

Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to "review . . . a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard. . . ." See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6^th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [R. 14] is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court;

2. The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 10, 11] is DENIED;

3. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 12] is GRANTED; and

4. Judgment in favor of the Defendant will be entered contemporaneously herewith.