Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER entered by Chief Judge Sara Darrow on September 9, 2020. The 18 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and Defendant's 17 Motion for Summary Affirmance is GRANTED. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), Defendant's decision in this matter is AFFIRMED. The Clerk is directed to substitute Andrew Saul as Defendant on the docket, enter judgment, and close the case. (AK, ilcd)
4:19-cv-04066-SLD-JEH # 19
Page 1 of 2
Wednesday, 09 September, 2020 03:20:30 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
ANDREW SAUL, 1
Case No. 4:19-cv-04066-SLD-JEH
Plaintiff Linda W. filed applications for supplemental security income and disability
insurance benefits. The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“the
Commissioner”) denied her applications, and Linda seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s
decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). See Compl., ECF No. 1. Before the
Court are Linda’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13, the Commissioner’s Motion for
Summary Affirmance, ECF No. 17, and United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan Hawley’s
Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 18, which recommends denying Linda’s motion and
granting 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
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Andrew Saul is substituted for his predecessor, Nancy
Berryhill. The Clerk is directed to update the docket accordingly.
4:19-cv-04066-SLD-JEH # 19
Page 2 of 2
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).
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, the parties’ motions and memoranda,
the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 18, is ADOPTED. Plaintiff Linda W.’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, ECF No. 13, is DENIED and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Affirmance,
ECF No. 17, is GRANTED. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), the
Commissioner’s decision in this matter is AFFIRMED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment
and close the case.
Entered this 9th day of September, 2020.
s/ Sara Darrow
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?