Williams v. Astrue

Filing 32

ORDER adopting 31 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud; see attached order for details. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 4/17/2012. (jhs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SUE ANNE WILLIAMS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of )
Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)

CIVIL NO. 11-440-GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud (Doc. 31). Plaintiff Sue Anne Williams brings this case pursuant
to

42

U.S.C.

§

405(g) seeking reversal of a

final

administrative decision of

Defendant Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, terminating Williams’s Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 423. In the Report and Recommendation,
Magistrate Judge Proud recommends that Commissioner’s final decision be affirmed. The Report
and Recommendation was entered on March 28, 2012.

Objections to the Report and

Recommendation were due by March 16, 2012; to date, no objections have been filed. Where timely
objections are filed, this Court must undertake a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); SDIL-LR 72.1(a)(3); Harper v.
City of Chicago Heights, 824 F. Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993). See also Govas v. Chalmers, 965
F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). The Court “may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s
recommended decision.” Harper, 824 F. Supp. at 788. In making this determination, the Court must
Page 1 of 2

look at all of the evidence contained in the record and “give fresh consideration to those issues to
which specific objections have been made.” Id. (quotation omitted). However, where neither timely
nor specific objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
this Court need not conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Proud’s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 31), and it is hereby ORDERED that the Commissioner’s final
decision terminating Williams’s DIB is AFFIRMED.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 17, 2012

/s/ G. Patrick Murphy
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge

1. While, as discussed, a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation in this case is not
required in this instance, the Court fully agrees with the findings, analysis, and conclusions of
Magistrate Judge Proud.
Page 2 of 2