Keng v. O'Malley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
GUY M. KENG,
Plaintiff,
versus
MARTIN O’MALLEY,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:24-cv-04384
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Guy M. Keng filed this action to challenge
denial of disability benefits by the Social Security
Administration. Dkt 1. The matter was referred for
disposition to Magistrate Judge Richard W. Bennett.
Dkt 4.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Dkts 14 & 18. Judge Bennett recommends that the
Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment be granted,
and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied.
Dkt 20.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 31, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-04384 Document 22 Filed 07/31/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt 21. He claims that the
Magistrate Judge erred by finding that (i) substantial
evidence supported the decision of the Administrative Law
Judge, and (ii) the ALJ didn’t err in finding that Plaintiff
is able to perform his past relevant work as a travel agent.
Id at 1–9.
Upon de novo review and determination Plaintiff’s
objections lack merit. The present objections were both
points argued by Plaintiff at length in his motion for
summary judgment. See Dkt 14 at 7–25. Judge Bennett
carefully considered and rejected them in his well-reasoned
Memorandum and Recommendation. Dkt 20. For reasons
stated there, the arguments advanced by Plaintiff fail to
demonstrate reversible error by the ALJ. See id at 6–13.
The objections by Plaintiff to the Memorandum and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED.
Dkt 21.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation,
the record, and the applicable law.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 20.
The motion by Defendant Martin O’Malley for
summary judgment is GRANTED. Dkt 18.
The motion by Plaintiff Guy M. Keng for summary
judgment is DENIED. Dkt 14.
All claims by Plaintiff Guy M. Keng are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will enter separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on July 31, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-04384 Document 22 Filed 07/31/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2