Irvin v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 3/23/2011. (msdi, )

Download PDF
Irvin v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 34 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SHERRY L. IRVIN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. No. 10-CV-085-DRH-CRP MEMORANDUM AND ORDER HERNDON, Chief Judge: On February 3, 2010, Sherry L. Irvin, by and through her attorney, filed a complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security, for judicial review of an administrative agency's decision (Doc. 2). Specifically, Irvin seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's decision denying her supplemental security income. On March 4, 2011, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), United States Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud submitted a Report and Recommendation ("the Report") recommending that the Court reverse the Commissioner's final decision and remand this case to the Commissioner for rehearing and reconsideration of the evidence (Doc. 33). The Report was sent to the parties with a notice informing them of their right to appeal by way of filing "objections" by March 22, 2011. To date, none of the parties have filed objections, and the period in which to file objections has expired. Page 1 of 2 Dockets.Justia.com Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court need not conduct de novo review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985). Thus, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 33). The Court REMANDS this case to the Commissioner for rehearing and reconsideration of the evidence, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 23rd day of March, 2011. Digitally signed by David R. Herndon Date: 2011.03.23 14:38:47 -05'00' Chief Judge United States District Court Page 2 of 2

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?