2:25-cv-00046•Oliver v. King
Full text
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED February 12, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk Case 2:25-cv-00046 Document 19 Filed 02/11/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2
Case 2:25-cv-00046 Document 19 Filed 02/11/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2
OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative
Case 2:25-cv-00046 Document19 _ Filed 02/11/26 in TXSD Page1of2 United States District Court Southem District of Texas ENTERED February 12, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION DANA OLIVER, § Plaintiff, : v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00046 MICHELLE A. KING, ef al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 18). The M&R recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 11), deny the Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 16), and reverse and remand the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits for further consideration. (D.E. 18, p. 12). The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon, J.) (citation omitted). Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 18). Accordingly, the Court AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO Case 2:25-cv-00046 Document19 _ Filed 02/11/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2 GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 11), DENIES the Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 16), REVERSES the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits, and REMANDS for further consideration. The Court will enter final judgment separately. SO ORDERED. DAVID 8. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas February 77, 2026
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.