BELL v. COLVIN

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation 22 and AFFIRMS the decision of the ALJ. Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 9/15/2017.(JRB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EVANSVILLE DIVISION

RYAN DAVID BELL,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner for the Social Security
Administration, 1
Defendant.

3:16-cv-00076-RLY-MPB

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Ryan David Bell, filed this instant action pro se to challenge the Social
Security Administration Commissioner’s decision denying him Disability Insurance
Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and Supplemental Security Income
under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. On July 25, 2017, the court referred the
matter to Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) for a Report and Recommendation. (Filing No. 18). On August
14, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed his Report and Recommendation in which he

1

At the time this case was filed, Carolyn W. Colvin was the Acting Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration. Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner on January 20,
2017. When a public officer ceases to hold office while an action is pending, the officer’s
successor is automatically substituted as a party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). Later proceedings
should be in the substituted party’s name and the court may order substitution at any time. Id.

1

recommended affirming the decision of the Commissioner stating that the ALJ’s decision
was based on substantial evidence. (Filing No. 22). Neither party has objected to the
Report and Recommendation. 2 Consequently, the court reviews the Report and
Recommendation for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th
Cir. 1999). Having considered the parties’ arguments, the ALJ’s decision, and the Report
and Recommendation, this court is satisfied that the Magistrate Judge did not commit
clear error.
Therefore, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Filing No. 22) and
AFFIRMS the decision of the ALJ.
SO ORDERED this 15th day of September 2017.

Copy to:
Ryan David Bell
309 S.E. First St.
Loogootee, IN 47553-2006

2

Plaintiff was informed of his right to file a Response to Defendant’s Brief in Support of the
Commissioner’s decision by August 10. (Filing No. 21). On August 15, five days after
Plaintiff’s response was due and one day after the Report and Recommendation was filed,
Plaintiff filed his Response. Because the Response was filed past the deadline, the court cannot
consider it. Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008) (pro se litigants are
not excused from compliance with procedural rules) (citations omitted); see also Raven v.
Madison Area Technical College, 443 Fed.Appx. 210, 212 (7th Cir. 2011) (“Although we
liberally construe pro se filings, we do not enlarge filing deadlines for them”) (citations omitted).
Even if the court construed Plaintiff’s Response as an objection to the Report and
Recommendation, the court would reach the same decision as the Magistrate Judge, for reasons
stated in the Report and Recommendation, as the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial
evidence. Lanigan v. Berryhill, 865 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2017).

2

Distributed Electronically to Registered Counsel of Record.

3