Childress v. O'Malley, No. 2:2022cv00514 - Document 19 (E.D. Va. 2024)

Court Description: FINAL ORDER - The Court does hereby ADOPT and APPROVE the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation filed September 25, 2023. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) is DENIED, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen on 3/29/2024. (dbra, )

Download PDF
Childress v. O'Malley Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division SONJA C., 1 Plaintiff, v. Civil No. 2:22cv514 MARTIN O’MALLEY, 2 Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. FINAL ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Sonja C.’s action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her claim for supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 72 of the Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and by order of reference dated February 24, 2023 (ECF No. 7), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller for a Report and Recommendation. 1 The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States has recommended that, due to significant privacy concerns in social security cases, federal courts should refer to claimants only by their first names and last initials. 2 Martin O’Malley is now the Commissioner of Social Security and is automatically substituted as a party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 Dockets.Justia.com On April 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 11. On May 12, 2023, the Commissioner filed a brief in support of the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits. ECF No. 14. On September 25, 2023, Judge Miller filed a report and recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied and that the Commissioner’s final decision be affirmed. ECF No. 16. By copy of the Report and Recommendation, each party was advised of the right to file written objections to the findings and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Id. at 28. The Court received Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) and the Commissioner’s Response thereto (ECF No. 18). The Court, having reviewed the record and examined the objection filed by Plaintiff to the Report and Recommendation, and having made de novo findings with respect to the portions objected to, does hereby ADOPT and APPROVE the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation filed September 25, 2023. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) is DENIED, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The parties are ADVISED that an appeal from this Final Order may be commenced by forwarding a written notice of appeal to the Clerk of the United States District Court, United States Courthouse, 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510. This written notice must be received by the Clerk within sixty days from the date of this Final Order. 2 The Clerk is DIRECTED to please provide a copy of this Order to all parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Arenda L. Wright Allen United States District Judge March 29, 2024 Norfolk, Virginia 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.