Eckermann v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on March 3, 2017. The Court ADOPTS the 17 Report and Recommendation in its entirety. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Defendant's 14 Motion for Summary Affirmance is DENIED and 10 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to enter an order remanding the case and the ALJ should reconsider the evidence in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's findings in his Report and Recommendation. (RS1, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 03 March, 2017 11:11:12 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
PAUL ECKERMANN,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 4:15-cv-04170-SLD-JEH

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER
Paul Eckermann filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of
the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny his application for social security
benefits. See Compl, ECF No. 1. The Court referred motions in the case to Magistrate Judge
Hawley. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On May 5, 2016, Eckermann filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment, ECF No. 10. The Commissioner filed a Motion for Summary Affirmance of the
Commissioner’s decision, ECF No. 14, on August 31, 2016. Judge Hawley issued a Report and
Recommendation on December 12, 2016, recommending that the Court deny the
Commissioner’s motion and granting Eckermann’s motion. ECF No. 17.
Neither party has objected to any portion of Judge Hawley’s Report and
Recommendation,1 as they are entitled to do pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
As the parties failed to present timely objections, any such objections have been waived.
Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing Video Views, Inc. v. Studio
21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986)). The Court reviews the unobjected portions of the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation for clear error. See Johnson, 170 F.3d at739.
1

Eckermann is represented by an attorney in this matter.

After reviewing the record, the Report and Recommendation, the parties’ motions and
memoranda, as well as the applicable law, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 17, in its entirety. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). Defendant’s Motion for Summary Affirmance, ECF No. 14, is DENIED and Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to enter an
order remanding the case and the ALJ should reconsider the evidence in accordance with the
Magistrate Judge’s findings in his Report and Recommendation.

Entered March 3, 2017.
s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE