4:04-cv-00654 | N.D. Tex. | Mar 16, 2006
Case 4:04-cv-00654-Y Document 29 Filed 03/16/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 104
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION NEOMI D. WATSON § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:04-CV-654-Y § JO ANNE B. BARNHART § ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION On February 17, 2006, the United States magistrate judge issued his proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation (“findings and conclusions”) in the above-styled and -numbered cause. An order issued that same day gave all parties until March 10, 2006, to serve and file with the Court written objections to the proposed findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge. The Court has not received any written objections. As a result, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), de novo review is not required. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions for plain error and has found none.
Thus, after consideration of this matter, the Court finds that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge should be and are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and the action REMANDED, pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. Case 4:04-cv-00654-Y Document 29 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 105 § 405(g), [1] for further administrative proceedings for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions.
SIGNED March 16, 2006.
NOTES
[1] The fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) states that the “court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” See Melkonyan v. Sullivan , 501 U.S. 89" date_filed="1991-06-10" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Melkonyan v. Sullivan">501 U.S. 89 (1991). 2