Reiss v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

OPINION AND ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (d/e 19 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 14 ) is DENIED. Defendant's Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 17 ) is GRANTED. The decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 9/26/2017. (MJC, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 26 September, 2017 10:43:03 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JEREMY E. REISS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 16-cv-03037

OPINION AND ORDER
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tom SchanzleHaskins (d/e 19). Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends that this
Court affirm the decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security denying Plaintiff Jeremy Eugene Reisss application for
Supplemental Security Income Disability Benefits (SSI), deny
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 14), and grant
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 17).
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on
September 5, 2017. Neither party filed objections.

Page 1 of 4

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) (also noting that a party
who fails to object to the report and recommendation waives
appellate review of the factual and legal questions).
Judge Schanzle-Haskins found that the Administrative Law
Judge’s (ALJ) decision to deny Plaintiff’s application for SSI was
supported by substantial evidence. Judge Schanzle-Haskins
concluded that the ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff’s conditions did not
meet or equal an impairment Listing specified in 20 C.F.R. Part 404
Subpart P, Appendix 1 was supported by substantial evidence
under either the version of the Listing in effect at the time she
issued her decision or under the revised Listing effective January
17, 2017. Judge Schanzle-Haskins also found that the ALJ’s
Page 2 of 4

decisions as to Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, that there are
jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that
Plaintiff can perform, and that Plaintiff is not disabled were
supported by substantial evidence. Finally, the Report and
Recommendation addressed Plaintiff’s contention that evidence in
the record indicating that Plaintiff has low academic or intellectual
ability supports Plaintiff’s argument that he is disabled. Judge
Schanzle-Haskins rejected this argument because the relevant
question is Plaintiff’s functional ability to work, which is not
necessarily precluded by limited intellect.
After reviewing the record, the Report and Recommendation,
the parties’ motions and memoranda, and the applicable law, this
Court finds no clear error.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation (d/e 19) is

ADOPTED in its entirety.
(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 14) is

DENIED.
(3)

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 17)

is GRANTED.
Page 3 of 4

(4)

The decision of the Defendant Commissioner of

Social Security is AFFIRMED.
(5)

THIS CASE IS CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER: September 26, 2017
FOR THE COURT:

s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 4 of 4