Gipson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 16

ORDER entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 12/4/17. The Report and Recommendation, d/e 15 is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Affirmance, d/e 13 is GRANTED and, the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, d/e 10 is DENIED. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. This case is CLOSED. (MAS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 05 December, 2017 01:55:38 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
FLOYD GIPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 16-CV-3281

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 15). Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends that this
Court GRANT Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion
for Summary Affirmance (d/e 13), DENY Plaintiff Floyd Gipson’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 10), and affirm the decision of
the Defendant Commissioner.
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or
before November 30, 2017. Neither party filed objections.

Page 1 of 3

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court
Amay 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). AIf 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 the Administrative Law
Judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Judge
Schanzle-Haskins addressed each of the issues raised by Plaintiff in
his memorandum in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment
(d/e 11). After reviewing the record, the Report and
Recommendation, the parties’ Motions and memoranda, as well as
the applicable law, this Court finds no clear error.

Page 2 of 3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation (d/e 15) is

ADOPTED in its entirety.
(2)

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 13)

is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e
10) is DENIED.
(3)

The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

(4)

This case is CLOSED.

ENTERED: December 4, 2017.
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH

Page 3 of 3