Johnson v. Commissioner of SSA

Filing 17

ORDER entered by Chief Judge Sara Darrow on June 21, 2019. The 16 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. Plaintiff Kominique J.'s 10 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Commissioner's 14 Motion for Summary Affirmance is DENI ED. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g), the Commissioner's decision in this matter is REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case. (AK, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 21 June, 2019 11:54:17 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
KOMINIQUE J.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW SAUL, 1
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:18-cv-04052-SLD-JEH

ORDER
Plaintiff Kominique J. filed an application for supplemental security income. The
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“the Commissioner”) denied her
application, and Kominique seeks judicial review of this decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
See Compl., ECF No. 1. Before the Court are Kominique’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
ECF No. 10, the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Affirmance, ECF No. 14, and United
States Magistrate Judge Jonathan Hawley’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 16, which
recommends granting Kominique’s motion and denying the Commissioner’s motion.
When a magistrate judge considers a pretrial matter dispositive of a party’s claim or
defense, he must enter a recommended disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). Parties may object
within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the recommended disposition. Id. 72(b)(2).
The district judge considers de novo the portions of the recommended disposition that were
properly objected to, and may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition, or return it
to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Id. 72(b)(3). If no objection, or only partial

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Andrew Saul is substituted for his predecessor, Nancy
Berryhill.

1

objection, is made, the district judge reviews the unobjected portions of the recommendation for
clear error. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
Neither party has objected to any portion of Judge Hawley’s Report and
Recommendation, so the Court reviews it for clear error only. The Court notes that Judge
Hawley’s review was limited to determining only whether the ALJ applied the correct legal
standard and whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. See Barnett v. Barnhart,
381 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” McKinzey v. Astrue, 641
F.3d 884, 889 (7th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). The ALJ does not have “to provide a
complete and written evaluation of every piece of testimony and evidence, but must build a
logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion.” Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929, 935 (7th
Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted). On review, a court cannot reweigh the evidence, decide
questions of credibility, or substitute its own judgment, but must “nonetheless conduct a critical
review of the evidence.” McKinzey, 641 F.3d at 889.
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, the parties’ motions and memoranda,
and the record, as well as the applicable law, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the
Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 16, is ADOPTED. Plaintiff Kominique J.’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary
Affirmance, ECF No. 14, is DENIED. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner’s
decision in this matter is REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED for further proceedings
consistent with the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and
close the case.

2

Entered this 21st day of June, 2019.
s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3