Winne v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
CHRISTINE ELIZABETH WINNE, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
V. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00097
§
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby's Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R" ). (D.E. 11). The M&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiffs construed motion for
summary judgment, (D.E. 8), grant Defendant's construed cross motion for summary judgment,
(D.E. 9), and dismiss this case. (D.E. 11 , p. 1). Plaintiff filed written objections to the M&R.
(D.E. 12).
When a party objects to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the
district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A
party must point out with particularity any alleged errors in the magistrate judge's analysis. Pelko
v. Perales, No. 23-CV-00339, 2024 WL 1972896, at *1 (S.D. Tex. May 3, 2024) (Ramos, J.).
Objections that merely re-urge arguments contained in the original briefing are not proper and will
not be considered. Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, "[f]rivolous,
conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court." Battle v. US. Parole
Comm 'n, 842 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly
erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson , 864 F.2d 1219, 1221
1 / 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 06, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:24-cv-00097 Document 13 Filed 02/06/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

(5th Cir. 	1989) (per curiam). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to
expeditiously adopt a magistrate's recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731 - 32 (5th Cir.
1994) (permitting a district court to adopt a magistrate' s recommendation one day after receiving
it and before objections were filed), the Fifth Circuit has also authorized district courts to adopt a
magistrate ' s recommendation without providing detailed analysis. See Habets v. Waste Mgmt. ,
Inc., 363 F.3d 378, 382 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming a district court's two-sentence order adopting a
magistrate's recommendation for summary judgment). 1
1 Specifically, the Fifth Circuit stated that "because the magistrate here made only legal findings on a
summary judgment motion, the district court was permitted to issue an abbreviated order adopting [the
recommendation]." Habets, 363 F.3d at 382. As this case is at the summary judgment stage, the Court finds
that the principles animating the Fifth Circuit's decision apply here: (1) "the record was available to the
district court a full 20 days before the court issued its order"; (2) "the magistrate here made no involved
findings of fact ... "; (3) "the magistrate here provided a thorough analysis to support its recommendation";
and (4) "the district court had a complete record of the magistrate' s proceedings." See id. ( citations omitted).
2 / 3
Case 2:24-cv-00097 Document 13 Filed 02/06/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

III. Conclusion
Having reviewed the proposed fi ndings and conclusions of the M&R, the record, the
applicable law, and having made a de novo review of the portions of the M&R to which Plaintiffs
objections are directed, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C), the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections,
(D .E. 12) , and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the M&R, (D.E. 11) . Accordingly, the
Court DENIES Plaintiffs construed motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 8) , and GRANTS
Defendant's construed motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 9). 	The final 	decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and the above-entitled action is DISMISSED.
The Court will enter a final judgment separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas
February ~ 	' 2026
3 13
DA 	ORALES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-00097 Document 13 Filed 02/06/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3