Cheatham v. Astrue
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Honorable Lee R. West on 4/7/2010. (brs, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA LILLIE MAE CHEATHAM, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
APR 07 2010
J,S. OIST. COlJRT, WESTERN DIS T
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
On March 15, 2010, United States Magistrate Judge Doyle W. Argo issued a Report and Recommendation in this case and recommended that the decision of defendant Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"), denying the Application for Supplemental Security Income filed by plaintiff Lillie Mae Cheatham be affirmed. Cheatham was advised of her right to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation, but she did not file any objections within the time allotted. Upon review of the record, the Court finds no error has occurred warranting the requested relief and concurs with Magistrate Judge Argo's suggested disposition of this matter. The Commissioner based his decision on substantial evidence, and because the Commissioner's finding regarding Cheatham's residual functional capacity sufficiently supports the Commissioner's finding at step three of the five-step sequential evaluation process required by 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, the Court finds that remand is not warranted under the circumstances of this case . .E.:.g., Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729 (10th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, the Court (1) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation issued on March 15, 2010; (2) AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision to deny Cheatham's Application for Supplemental Security Income; and (3) ORDERS that judgment in favor of the Commissioner issue forthwith. ENTERED this
7~day o f April, 2010 . .
t E . WEST
UNI, ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?