Heath v. Morris et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:22-cv-00318 Document 31 Filed on 12/21/25 in TXSD Page1of2
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas
ENTERED
December 22, 2025
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ERIC HEATH, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-00318

§
SCOTT T. MORRIS, ef al., §
§
Defendants. §

ORDER

Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Christina Bryan’s Memorandum and
Recommendation filed on September 30, 2025 (Doc. #28), as well as Plaintiff Eric Heath’s
Objections filed on October 8, 2025 (Doc. #29) and October 30, 2025 (Doc. #30),' The Magistrate
Judge’s findings and conclusions are reviewed de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C,
§ 636(b)(1); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989). Having reviewed
Plaintiffs arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Court adopts the Memorandum and
Recommendation as its Order.

In this case, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s (the
“Commissioner”) denial of his application for disability benefits. On March 12, 2025, Plaintiff
moved for summary judgment on the grounds that his “medical records prove that [he has] had a

disability.” Doc. #21 at 1. The Commissioner filed a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on

' The Court notes that the parties were afforded fourteen days from the entry of the Memorandum
and Recommendation, or until October 14, 2025, to file written objections. As such, Plaintiff's
Objections filed on October 30, 2025 are untimely. However, the Court finds that, even
considering the late-filed Objections, the Memorandum and Recommendation should be adopted.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 4:22-cv-00318 Document 31 Filed on 12/21/25 in TXSD ~=— Page 2 of 2

April 14, 2025, Doc, #22. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiffs Motion for
Summary Judgment be denied and Commissioner’s Cross Motion be granted. Doc. #28.

Plaintiff objects to the Memorandum and Recommendation because he believes the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) who reviewed his benefit decision was biased and wrong to
conclude he was not disabled. As the Magistrate Judge notes, however, the “standard of review
for social security disability claims is exceedingly deferential.” Doc. #28 at 6 (quoting Taylor v.
Astrue, 706 F.3d 600, 603 (Sth Cir. 2012)). Here, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
the ALJ’s determination “is supported by substantial evidence and is not the result of legal error.”
id. at 10-12. As such, Plaintiff's objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation are
overruled.

In conclusion, the Court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. #28) as its
Order. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #21) is DENIED, the Commissioner’s
Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc, #22) is GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s final
decision is AFFIRMED. Accordingly, this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

It is so ORDERED,

DEC 2 1 2025

Date The Honorable Alfred H. Bennett
United States District Judge