United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 10, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-31107
Summary Calendar
REQUELLE BRYANT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-904
--------------------
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Requelle Bryant filed a complaint in federal district court
asserting that the decision of the Commissioner to deny her
supplemental security income (SSI) benefits was not supported by
substantial evidence. The district court reversed the decision
of the Commissioner and remanded Bryant’s case pursuant to the
fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for consideration of
additional evidence.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-31107
-2-
Bryant does not assert that the district court erred in its
judgment. Bryant’s sole argument on appeal is that the district
court erred by failing to address the arguments contained in her
objections to the magistrate judge’s report. In adopting the
magistrate judge’s report, the district court stated that it had
conducted an independent review of the record including Bryant’s
objections. This court presumes that “the district court did its
statutorily commanded duty in the absence of evidence to
the contrary” when the district court states that it conducted
an independent review. Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40
(5th Cir. 1993). Further, a district court’s failure to consider
timely filed objections will not constitute reversible error
absent a showing of prejudice. See Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp,
S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, 646-47 (5th Cir. 1994). As Bryant
concedes the district court did not err in its judgment, she
cannot show prejudice with respect to her allegation the district
court failed to consider the arguments contained in her
objections. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.