Guetti v. Astrue

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 . The Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation, as the Court finds the Commissioner's decision to deny disability benefits is in compliance with the relevant legal requirements and is supporte d by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1.Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 9 is DENIED; 2.The Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment 13 is GRANTED; and 3.The case is dismissed.LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 2/10/14. (GRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Charles John Guetti,

Civil No. 12-cv-3004 (MJD/SER)

Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn Colvin,
Commissioner of Social Security,

ORDER

Defendant.

Jennifer G. Mrozik, Esq., Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC, 1781
West County Road B, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, for Plaintiff.
Ana H. Voss and Gregory G. Brooker, Esqs., Office of the United States
Attorney, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415, for
Defendant.

The above-entitled matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections
to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Steven E.
Rau, dated December 6, 2013 [Docket No. 15]. Plaintiff has objected to the Report
and Recommendation, arguing that Magistrate Judge Rau, the Commissioner
and the ALJ did not give proper weight to the opinions of the treating
physicians, did not consider all of the Polaski factors, and misapplied the

medical vocational rules and is not based on substantial evidence in the record as
a whole.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the
record. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based on that review, the Court
will adopt the Report and Recommendation, as the Court finds the
Commissioner’s decision to deny disability benefits is in compliance with the
relevant legal requirements and is supported by substantial evidence in the
record as a whole.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 9] is DENIED;

2.

The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 13] is
GRANTED; and

3.

The case is dismissed.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY

Dated February 10, 2014.
s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
Chief Judge
United States District Court
2