Evans v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 and AFFIRMING Decision by the Commissioner of Social Security; DENYING 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Richard L Evans. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 7/25/2012. (ktc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

RICHARD L. EVANS,

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

CIVIL NO.11-789-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. 16), recommending that this Court affirm the final decision
by the Commissioner of Social Security to deny Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income benefits, and deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 13). The Report and Recommendation was entered on June 15, 2012. No timely
objections have been filed.1
Where timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a de novo review of the Report
and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); SDIL-LR 73.1(b);
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

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff is represented by counsel.
Page 1 of 2

Court must 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., quoting 12 Charles Alan Wright et al.,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 3076.8, at p. 55 (1st ed. 1973) (1992 Pocket Part).
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 (1985). Therefore, the Court
ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Proud’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16)2 and AFFIRMS the
final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security finding Plaintiff is not disabled and denying
Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 13)
is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 25, 2012
s/ ZA ctàÜ|v~ `âÜÑ{ç
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge

2

While a de novo review is not required, the Court fully agrees with the findings,
analysis, and conclusions of Magistrate Judge Proud.
Page 2 of 2