Craig v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 27

ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on March 24, 2015, ADOPTING the 23 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Defendant's 19 Motion for Summary Affirmance is GRANTED. (BRP, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 24 March, 2015 09:50:52 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
MARC JONATHON CRAIG,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:13-cv-01252-SLD-JEH

ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Jonathan Hawley, ECF No. 23, that was filed with the Court on February 3, 2015. Plaintiff Marc
Jonathan Craig filed his Objection to the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 24, on February
17, 2015.

The Government filed its Response to Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and

Recommendation, ECF No. 26, on March 11, 2015.
The Court may accept, reject, or modify (in whole or in part) the findings or
recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are
made. Id. In making this determination, the Court must look to all of the evidence contained in
the record and “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objections have been
made.” Rajaratnam v. Moyer, 47 F.3d 922, 924 n.8 (7th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The Court has reviewed the other portions of the report for clear error. See Johnson v.
Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).

1

As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Magistrate Judge’s role was simply to
determine whether the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) was supported by
substantial evidence.

“Substantial evidence” is defined as “such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d
836, 841 (7th Cir. 2007). “The ALJ is not required to address every piece of evidence or
testimony presented, but must provide a ‘logical bridge’ between the evidence and the
conclusions . . . .” Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155, 1160 (7th Cir. 2010). This Court may not
reweigh evidence, decide questions of credibility, or substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ.
See Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1001 (7th Cir.2004).
Having reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
together with the entire record, the Court concurs with the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge for the reasons set forth in his Report and Recommendation. The Court also determines
that no further proceeding is necessary.
1.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, ECF No. 23, is hereby ADOPTED.

2.

It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, is
DENIED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Affirmance, ECF No. 19 is
GRANTED.

Entered this 24th day of March, 2015.
s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2