Davidson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 5/26/2015: The Court now adopts the Report and Recommendation 18 of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 12 is GRANT ED and the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Affirmance 16 is DENIED. This case is remanded pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 USC § 405(g) in order for the ALJ to address the factors enumerated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Reco mmendation that she did not address in deciding how much weight to accord Dr. Ergene's opinion in her October 26, 2012 Decision, to articulate the weight she gives Dr. Ergene's opinion following that discussion, and to revise her RFC accordingly. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(JRK, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 26 May, 2015 04:08:59 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
RAYMOND D. DAVIDSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 14-1049

ORDER
On April 14, 2015, a Report and Recommendation [18] was filed by Magistrate Judge
Jonathan E. Hawley in the above captioned case. More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed
since the filing of the Report and Recommendation, and no objections have been made. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015 (7th Cir. 1988);
Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). As the parties failed to
present timely objections, any such objections have been waived. Id.
The relevant procedural history is sufficiently set forth in the comprehensive Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Suffice it to say that Davidson has brought this
litigation appealing the Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance
benefits. Having reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, the
Court concurs with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his
Report and Recommendations.
Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report and Recommendation [18] of the
Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [12] is GRANTED
and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Affirmance [16] is DENIED. This case is

remanded pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 USC § 405(g) in order for the ALJ to address the
factors enumerated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation that she did not
address in deciding how much weight to accord Dr. Ergene’s opinion in her October 26, 2012
Decision, to articulate the weight she gives Dr. Ergene’s opinion following that discussion, and
to revise her RFC accordingly.
Entered this 26th day of May, 2015.
/s/ James E. Shadid
James E. Shadid
Chief United States District Judge