Gentry v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner, No. 5:2017cv00502 - Document 12 (N.D. Ala. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 7/23/2018. (KEK)

Download PDF
Gentry v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner Doc. 12 FILED 2018 Jul-23 AM 09:18 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION WILLIAM JERRY GENTRY, II, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. } } } } } } } } } } } Case No.: 5:17-cv-0502-MHH MEMORANDUM OPINION Mr. Gentry filed this disability case on March 30, 2017. (Doc. 1). On June 14, 2018, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he recommended that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision denying Mr. Gentry’s disability claim. (Doc. 10). The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file objections within 14 days. (Doc. 10, pp. 22-23). To date, no party has filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d Dockets.Justia.com 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 (11th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).1 The Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judge’s description of the relevant facts. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his recommendation. DONE this 23rd day of July, 2018. _________________________________ MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 When a party objects to a report in which a magistrate judge recommends dismissal of the action, a district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B)-(C).

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.