McIntosh v. SSA - Document 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON KENNETH MCINTOSH, Plaintiff, V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** *** The Plaintiff, Kenneth McIntosh, 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. 12.] On January 25, 2010, Magistrate Judge Atkins filed his Report and Recommendation. [R. 13.] In his Report, the Magistrate Judge considered and rejected each of McIntosh's three arguments. Specifically, Judge Atkins concluded that the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ's") credibility determination complied with social security regulations, and was supported by substantial evidence. [Id. at 4-7.] Judge Atkins further concluded that the ALJ's rejection of the opinions of McIntosh's treating physicians was supported by substantial evidence, and that the ALJ gave sufficient reasons for that rejection. [Id. at 7-9.] Finally, Judge Atkins determined that Civil No. 09-167-GFVT ORDER  the ALJ's decision to exclude McIntosh's alleged mental impairments from his hypothetical question to the Vocational Expert was not error, as those mental impairments were not supported by substantial evidence in the record. [Id. at 9-11.] Although the parties were given fourteen (14) days from the filing of the Report and Recommendation to file objections [Id. at 11], 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 (6th 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. 13] is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court; 2. 3. 4. The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 10] is DENIED; The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 11] is GRANTED; and Judgment in favor of the Defendant will be entered contemporaneously herewith. This the 17th day of February, 2010. -2-  -3-