From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wormwood v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Chattanooga
Jan 8, 2009
Case No. 1:08-cv-60 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 8, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. 1:08-cv-60.

January 8, 2009


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Plaintiff Pamela S. Wormwood brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the final administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381- 1383f.

This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) for a report and recommendation. Magistrate Judge Lee filed her report and recommendation on December 4, 2008. [Doc. No. 17].

The parties have not timely filed any objections. After reviewing the record, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [Doc. No. 11] is DENIED. The defendant's motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 15] is GRANTED pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED. The plaintiff's complaint will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with each party to bear their own costs of this action.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter a final judgment in accordance with this memorandum and order. The Clerk of Court shall close the record in this case.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Wormwood v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Chattanooga
Jan 8, 2009
Case No. 1:08-cv-60 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 8, 2009)
Case details for

Wormwood v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:PAMELA S. WORMWOOD, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Chattanooga

Date published: Jan 8, 2009

Citations

Case No. 1:08-cv-60 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 8, 2009)

Citing Cases

Boggs v. Kijakazi

“[I]t is not the rejection of the treating physician's opinion that triggers the duty to recontact the…