
    Michael Bryan SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-20052
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 3, 2015.
    Dominick Bonino, Esq., Law Offices of Harry J. Binder & Charles E. Binder, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    ■ Thomas Edward Chandler, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel Region VI, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appel-lee.
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Bryan Smith appeals the District Court’s December 12, 2014 Order Adopting Magistrate’s Memorandum and . Recommendation and Dismissing Case, in which that court approved and adopted the Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and overruled Smith’s objections thereto. That Memorandum and Recommendation patiently and painstakingly sets out, over the course of 20 pages, the factual background and the legal reasoning for granting Defendant-Appellee’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, affirming the May 11, 2011 holding of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that Plaintiff-Appellant was not disabled for purposes of the applicable sections of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2010, the last date insured. Barring the grant of a writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, this court will be the last of four fora to consider Smith’s original and appellate claims..

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, including the briefs and record excerpts of the parties, paying special attention to the ALJ’s decision, the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation, and the district court’s adoption thereof. As a result of our review, we are satisfied that, given the deferential standards of review applicable in this Social Security case to the ALJ’s determinations and to the proceedings and holdings in the district court, all rulings before us bn appeal are free of reversible error and are hereby

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     