Dennis v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION KIMBERLEE L. DENNIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 19-cv-3242 ) ANDREW SAUL, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge: This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle- Haskins (d/e 17). Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends that this Court grant Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 15), deny Plaintiff Kimberlee L. Dennis’ Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 11), and affirm the decision of the Defendant Commissioner. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or before December 7, 2020. Neither party filed objections. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court Amay accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court reviews de novo any part of the Report and Recommendation to which a proper objection has been made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F. 3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (also noting that a party who fails to object to the report and recommendation waives appellate review of the factual and legal questions). Judge Schanzle-Haskins found the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Judge Schanzle-Haskins addressed each of the issues raised by Plaintiff in her Brief (d/e 11). After reviewing the record, the Report and Recommendation, the parties’ Motions, and Plaintiff’s reply brief, as well as the applicable law, this Court finds no clear error. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: (1) The Report and Recommendation (d/17) is ADOPTED in its entirety. (2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 15) is GRANTED. (3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 11) is DENIED. (4) The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. (5) This case is CLOSED. ENTERED: December 10, 2020. FOR THE COURT: s/ Sue E. Myerscough___ SUE E. MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE