Windes v. Social Security Administration, No. 2:2016cv04871 - Document 17 (E.D. La. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 . IT IS ORDERED that defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED and plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/31/2017.(cg)

Download PDF
Windes v. Social Security Administration Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ROBERT WINDES CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 16-4871 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION SECTION “R” (5) ORD ER AN D REASON S The Court has reviewed de novo the com plaint, 1 plaintiff’s m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, 2 defendant’s cross-m otion for sum m ary judgment, 3 the record, the applicable law, the Magistrate Recom mendation, 4 and plaintiff’s objections. 5 J udge’s Report and The Magistrate J udge’s recom mended ruling is correct, and plaintiff’s objections were fully addressed by the Report and Recomm endation or are otherwise without m erit. 6 Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate J udge’s Report and Recom mendation as its opinion herein. 1 R. Doc. 1. R. Doc. 13. 3 R. Doc. 14. 4 R. Doc. 15. 5 R. Doc. 16. 6 R. Doc. 15. Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recom mendation’s discussion of plaintiff’s om ission of deep vein thrombosis as a disabling condition on his original application and plaintiff’s failure to ask the vocational expert about exertional lim itations resulting from deep vein throm bosis. See R. Doc. 16-1 at 10 -14. But the Magistrate J udge did not base his recomm endation on a finder of waiver. The Magistrate J udge 2 Dockets.Justia.com IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s cross-m otion for summ ary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s m otion for sum m ary judgment is DENIED and plaintiff’s com plaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJ UDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ 31st _ day of August, 20 17. ___ _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE correctly concluded that substantial evidence in the medical record supports the Adm inistrative Law J udge’s finding that plaintiff’s deep vein throm bosis does not cause him any functional lim itations. 2

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.