Martise v. Astrue

Filing 25

ORDER -.....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge is sustained, adopted and incorporated herein. [Doc. 24] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner denying plain tiff's application for supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act is AFFIRMED. An appropriate judgment will accompany this order. for 24 Report and Recommendations,,. Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on 3/8/2010. (MRC)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION TONI L. MARTISE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Frederick R. Buckles, filed February 11, 2010. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b). The Magistrate Judge recommended that the decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff's application for supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act be affirmed. Neither party has filed an objection to the recommendation. After careful review of the matter, the Court concurs with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in the thorough Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge is sustained, adopted and incorporated herein. [Doc. 24] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff's application for supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act is AFFIRMED. No. 4:08-CV-1380 CAS An appropriate judgment will accompany this order. __________________________________ CHARLES A. SHAW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 8th day of March, 2010. -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?