Kruse v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/4/2024. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1381(c)(3). SEE WRITTEN ORDER. (JPL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
BRIAN K.,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:23-cv-01159

ORDER
Plaintiff Brian K. (“Brian”) filed an application for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income. Defendant the Commissioner of Social Security (“the
Commissioner”) denied his application, and Brian seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s
decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). (D. 10). This matter is now before the
Court on Brian’s Briefs, (D. 10; D. 17), the Commissioner’s Brief, (D. 16), and the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jonathan Hawley entered on May 16, 2024. (D. 19). The
Report and Recommendation recommends granting Brian’s request to reverse the Commissioner’s
unfavorable decision and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with the Report and
Recommendation’s Opinion pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Sentence Four. (D. 19).
When a magistrate judge considers a pretrial matter dispositive of a party’s claim or
defense, he must enter a recommendation of disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). The Parties were
advised that any objection to the Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days.
(D. 19, p. 11 (citing Fed. R. Civ. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). More than fourteen days have
elapsed, and no objections were made; therefore, any objections to the Report and
Recommendation have been waived. See Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th
1

Cir. 1999); see also Lorentzen v. Anderson Pest Control, 64 F.3d 327, 330 (7th Cir. 1995). When
no objections are made, the district judge reviews the recommendation for clear error. Johnson,
170 F.3d at 739.
Judge Hawley’s review was limited to determining whether the administrative law judge’s
(“ALJ”) findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether the ALJ applied the correct
legal standard. (D. 19, p. 3 (citing Delgado v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 79, 82 (7th Cir. 1986))). Substantial
evidence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
the decision.” Id. (citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971); Henderson v. Apfel,
179 F.3d 507, 512 (7th Cir. 1999)). 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 conclusions.” Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929, 935 (7th Cir. 215) (quotation marks
omitted).
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, the Parties’ pleadings, the record, and
the application law, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the [19] Report and
Recommendation is ADOPTED. The Commissioner’s decision denying Brian’s application for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income is REVERSED and the case is
REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1381(c)(3). The Clerk
is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case.
Entered on June 4, 2024.

/s/ Michael M. Mihm
Michael M. Mihm
United States District Judge

2