Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER - It is, therefore, ORDERED:(1) The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins (d/e 17 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. (2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 15 ) is GRANTED. (3) Plai ntiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 13 ) is DENIED. (4) Defendant's decision that Plaintiff is not entitled to Supplemental Security Income is AFFIRMED. (5) THIS CASE IS CLOSED. SEE WRITTEN ORDER. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 9/11/2019. (ME, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 16 September, 2019 06:07:28 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
ANGELA S. LEWIS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ANDREW SAUL,
)
Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant.
)

Case No. 18-cv-03097

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 17). Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends
that this Court: (1) grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Affirmance (d/e 15); (2) deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (d/e 13); and (3) affirm Defendant’s decision that Plaintiff
is not entitled to Supplemental Security Income.
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or
before April 23, 2019. Neither party filed objections.

Page 1 of 3 

The district court reviews de novo any part of a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation to which a specific written
objection has been made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). If no objection or only partial objection is made, the
district 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).
After a careful review of the record, the Report and
Recommendation, and the parties’ motions and memoranda, as well
as the applicable law, the Court finds no clear error in Magistrate
Judge Schanzle-Haskins’ Report and Recommendation.
It is, therefore, ORDERED:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins (d/e 17) is ACCEPTED
and ADOPTED in full.
(2)

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 15)

is GRANTED.

Page 2 of 3 

(3)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 13) is

DENIED.
(4)

Defendant’s decision that Plaintiff is not entitled to

Supplemental Security Income is AFFIRMED.
(5)

THIS CASE IS CLOSED.

ENTER: September 11, 2019
/s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3