Boyer v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; The Court REVERSES theCommissioners decision and REMANDS for further proceedings consistent with this Order. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 9/16/14. (mlc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EDWARD BOYER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY, sued as Carolyn
Colvin,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 4:13-CV-45-TLS

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 14] of
United States Magistrate Judge John E. Martin, which was filed on August 26, 2014. The
Plaintiff, Edward Boyer, filed a Complaint [ECF No. 1] and Memorandum of Plaintiff [ECF No.
11] asking the Court to remand this matter for further administrative proceedings and award
benefits. In his Report and Recommendation, Judge Martin recommends that the Plaintiff’s
request to remand this matter for further administrative proceedings be granted but that the
Plaintiff’s request to award benefits be denied. Judge Martin also gave notice that within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy of this recommended disposition, a party may serve and
file specific, written objections to the proposed findings or recommendations.
A judge may refer a dispositive matter to a magistrate judge for a Report and
Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b),
and Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 72–1.
This Court’s review of a magistrate’s report and recommendation is governed by 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which provides in part:

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of
the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter
to the magistrate judge with instructions.
The statute permits objections to the magistrate’s report and recommendations to be made within
fourteen days of service of a copy of the report. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (setting forth
procedures for objecting to a magistrate’s report and recommendation and the district court’s
resolution of any objections).
Because the parties have not filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, de
novo review is not required. This Court finds that the Magistrate Judge has correctly resolved the
issues raised by the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS the Report and
Recommendation [ECF No. 14] in its entirety for the reasons set forth in Judge Martin’s analysis.
The Court GRANTS the Plaintiff’s request to remand this matter for further administrative
proceedings and DENIES the Plaintiff’s request to award benefits. The Court REVERSES the
Commissioner’s decision and REMANDS for further proceedings consistent with this Order.
SO ORDERED on September 16, 2014.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION

2