Bennett v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND DIVISION BRETT W. B., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:19-cv-04248-SLD-JEH ) ANDREW SAUL, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Plaintiff Brett W. B. filed an application for disability insurance benefits. The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“the Commissioner”) denied his application, and Brett seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Compl., ECF No. 1. Before the Court are Brett’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Affirmance, ECF No. 15, and United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 17, which recommends granting Brett’s motion and denying the Commissioner’s motion. When a magistrate judge considers a pretrial matter dispositive of a party’s claim or defense, he must enter a recommended disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). Parties may object within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the recommended disposition. Id. 72(b)(2). The district judge considers de novo the portions of the recommended disposition that were properly objected to and may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition or return it to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Id. 72(b)(3). If no objection, or only partial objection, is made, the district judge reviews the unobjected portions of the recommendation for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). Neither party has objected to any portion of Judge Hawley’s Report and Recommendation, so the Court reviews it for clear error only. The Court notes that Judge Hawley’s review was limited to determining only whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standard and whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. See Barnett v. Barnhart, 381 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” McKinzey v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 884, 889 (7th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). The ALJ does not have “to provide a complete and written evaluation of every piece of testimony and evidence, but must build a logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion.” Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929, 935 (7th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted). After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, the parties’ motions and memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 17, is ADOPTED. Plaintiff Brett W. B.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Affirmance, ECF No. 15, is DENIED. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner’s decision in this matter is REVERSED, and the cause is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case. Entered this 21st day of December, 2020. s/ Sara Darrow SARA DARROW CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE