Palmer v. Astrue
Filing
18
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amended Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge is sustained, adopted and incorporated herein. [Doc. 16 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of th e Commissioner denying plaintiffs application for application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401, et seq., is AFFIRMED. An appropriate judgment will accompany this order. Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on 5/5/11. (KJS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
RUBY C. PALMER,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:10-CV-37 CAS
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to the amended Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker filed April 19, 2011. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
The Magistrate Judge recommended that the decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff’s
application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 401, et seq., be affirmed. Neither party has filed an objection to the recommendation and the time
to do so has passed.
After careful review of the matter, the Court concurs with the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amended Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge is sustained, adopted and incorporated herein. [Doc. 16]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff’s
application for application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. §§ 401, et seq., is AFFIRMED.
An appropriate judgment will accompany this order.
__________________________________
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 5th day of May, 2011.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?