Raul Ponce Jr v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 4:2015cv00782 - Document 22 (N.D. Tex. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER accepting re: 21 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 1 Complaint filed by Raul Ponce, Jr,..orders the decisions of the Commissioner that plaintiff is not disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Soc Sec Act; and based on the application for supplemental security protectively filed by plaintiff on January 31 2013, plaintiff is not disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act are hereby affirmed. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 9/29/2016) (wrb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Raul Ponce Jr v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 22 - ':-,\rdt..llOLl--,1 DlS1 RlCT OF rEX,\S I F1LED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\ FORT WORTH DIVISION RAUL PONCE, JR. , Plaintiff, : § § VS. § § CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, I CLERK, U.S. DlSTRJCT COlJRT By Dec::_,tv \ ...... § Defendant. NO. 4:15-CV-782-A § § § § ORDER Came on for consideration the above-captioned action wherein Raul Ponce, Jr. ("Ponce") is plaintiff and the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, currently Carolyn W. Colvin, ("Commissioner") is defendant. This is an action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff's claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. On September 6, 2016, the United States Magistrate Judge issued his proposed findings and conclusions and his recommendation ("FC&R"), and granted the parties until September 20, 2016, in which to file and serve any written objections thereto. No objections were filed. Nevertheless, the court has conducted a thorough study of the record, the magistrate judge's proposed findings and conclusions, and applicable legal Dockets.Justia.com authorities, and has concluded that the recommendation of the magistrate judge should be accepted. Therefore, The court accepts the recommendation of the magistrate judge and ORDERS the decisions of the Commissioner that, based on the application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits protectively filed by plaintiff on January 31, 2013, plaintiff is not disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act; and, based on the application for supplemental security income protectively filed by plaintiff on January 31, 2013, plaintiff is not disabled under section 1614(a) (3) (A} of the Social Security Act, be, and are hereby, affirmed. SIGNED September 29, 2016. / 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.
