Williams v Commissioner of Social Security, No. 7:2020cv00008 - Document 21 (N.D. Tex. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: 20 Findings and Recommendations on Case. Accordingly, the Court REVERSES the Administrative Law Judge's decision and REMANDS this action to the Commissioner for further proceedings in accordance with this Order and the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 1/21/2021) (trt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 21 Case 7:20-cv-00008-O-BP Document 21 Filed 01/21/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID 578 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION MELISSA DAWN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 7:20-cv-00008-O-BP ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation in this case (ECF No. 20), issued on December 30, 2020. No objections were filed, and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is ripe for review. The District Judge reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the undersigned District Judge believes that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, the Court REVERSES the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and REMANDS this action to the Commissioner for further proceedings in accordance with this Order and the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. SO ORDERED on this 21st day of January, 2021. _____________________________________ Reed O’Connor UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
