Reported / Citable
Background
John Tarkington filed an action under Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial of his application for Social Security benefits. The district court referred the case to U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Tarkington objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on two grounds. He argued that the magistrate judge improperly focused only on the medical records while ignoring his subjective complaints, and that the magistrate judge failed to properly consider the appropriate factors at step five.
The Court’s Holding
After reviewing Tarkington’s objections and the record de novo, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions as its own.
The court accordingly ordered the action dismissed with prejudice. The one-page order did not separately analyze the two objections or provide additional reasoning for rejecting them.
Key Takeaways
- The district court conducted de novo review of the objections and the record.
- The court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions in full.
- The action challenging the denial of Social Security benefits was dismissed with prejudice.
Why It Matters
The order ends Tarkington’s district-court challenge to the Commissioner’s benefits decision by adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing the case with prejudice. It also identifies the two issues Tarkington preserved through his objections: consideration of his subjective complaints and application of the relevant factors at step five.