Knowles v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 16

ORDER entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 2/19/2016. The Report and Recommendation, d/e 15 is ADOPTED (with edits). The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, d/e 11 is DENIED. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Affirmance, d/e 12 is ALLOWED. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Case CLOSED. (SEE WRITTEN ORDER)(MAS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 23 February, 2016 10:53:58 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
TERRY R. KNOWLES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner, Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 14-cv-3219

ORDER
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiff Terry Knowles has appealed from the denial of his
application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and
Supplemental Security Income. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 416(i),
423, 1381a, and 1382c, 1383(c).
On January 6, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Tom
Schanzle-Haskins issued a Report and Recommendation (d/e 15).
Judge Schanzle-Haskins found that the ALJ’s finding regarding
Knowles’s residual functioning capacity was adequately supported,
and that the ALJ’s finding that Knowles was not disabled was
Page 1 of 5

supported by substantial evidence. Judge Schanzle-Haskins
recommended that the Court deny Knowles’s motion for summary
judgment (d/e 11), grant the Defendant’s motion for summary
affirmance (d/e 12), and affirm the Commissioner’s decision.
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on
January 25, 2016. Neither party filed objections.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court
“may 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).
Having reviewed the record, the Report and Recommendation,
the parties’ motions and memoranda, the Court finds no clear error.
The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation with the
following edits:
1.

On page 3, “…but used it…” becomes “…but he used it…”
Page 2 of 5

2.

On page 5, “…but ran out…” becomes “…but he ran
out…”

3.

On page 5, “…but did not…” becomes “….but he did
not…”

4.

On page 6, a comma is added after “persistence.”

5.

On page 8, “palpitation” becomes “palpation.”

6.

On page 8, “antidepressants” becomes “carbamazepine.”

7.

On page 9, “mid foot” becomes “middle of the foot.”

8.

On page 9, “palpitation” becomes “palpation.”

9.

On page 9, “…but could not…” becomes “but he could
not.”

10.

On page 12, “…but only worked…” becomes “…but he
only worked…”

11.

On page 13, “while” becomes “when.”

12.

On page 15, “…was taking Carbitrol for…” becomes
“…was taking Carbitrol, an anticonvulsant and mood
stabilizer, for…”

13.

On page 16, “…but did not…” becomes “…but he did
not…”

Page 3 of 5

14.

On page 17, “…but did not…” becomes “…but the
medicine did not…”

15.

On page 21, the comma after “dexterity” is removed.

16.

On page 21, “mid-foot” becomes “middle of the foot.”

17.

On page 22, “…but gave it…” becomes “…but he gave
it…”

18.

On page 22, “…limitation that opined by…” becomes
“…limitation than opined by…”

19.

On page 26, “…physical therapy or any other…” becomes
“…physical therapy, or any other…”

20.

On page 28, “…and could bend…” becomes “…and he
could bend…”

21.

On page 28, the comma after “walking” is removed.

22.

On page 28, “…asks the Court reweigh…” becomes
“…asks the Court to reweigh…”

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation (d/e 15) is

ADOPTED with the edits listed above.
(2)

Knowles’s motion for summary judgment (d/e 11) is

DENIED.
Page 4 of 5

(3)

The Defendant’s motion for summary affirmance (d/e

12) is ALLOWED.
(4)

The Decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

THIS CASE IS CLOSED.
ENTER: February 19, 2016
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 5 of 5