From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saenz v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
Aug 28, 2019
Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00156 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2019)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00156

08-28-2019

RUBY SAENZ, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the "Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation" ("R&R") (Docket No. 12). The R&R recommended this Court (1) grant Andrew Saul's ("Defendant") "Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Defendant's MSJ") (Docket No. 11), (2) deny Ruby Saenz's ("Plaintiff") "Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Plaintiff's MSJ") (Docket No. 10), and (3) affirm Defendant's final decision in Plaintiff's underlying administrative action. Docket No. 12 at 1. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant objected to the R&R.

After a review of the file for clear error, the R&R is hereby ADOPTED. Defendant's MSJ (Docket No. 11) is GRANTED, Plaintiff's MSJ (Docket No. 10) is DENIED, and Defendant's final decision in Plaintiff's administrative action is AFFIRMED. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to close this case.

Signed on this 28th day of August, 2019.

/s/_________

Rolando Olvera

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Saenz v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
Aug 28, 2019
Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00156 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2019)
Case details for

Saenz v. Saul

Case Details

Full title:RUBY SAENZ, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

Date published: Aug 28, 2019

Citations

Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00156 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2019)

Citing Cases

Young v. Comm'r, SSA

Young failed to satisfy her step two burden; the ALJ properly found that Young's alleged hearing and other…

Stuckey v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

However, the ordering of a C.E. and medical expert testimony is at the ALJ's discretion. Sterling v.…