IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
April 2, 2012
DIANA KURPIEL, PLAINTIFF,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud (Doc. 26), recommending that Defendant's final decision regarding Plaintiff's disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income be reversed and that this action be remanded for further proceedings. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Proud finds that the Administrative Law Judge's consideration of the medical evidence was legally insufficient. Magistrate Judge Proud further notes that he does not make any suggestion whether Plaintiff is in fact disabled; rather, because of legal errors, a remand for rehearing and reconsideration of the evidence is appropriate. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Proud recommends that Defendant's decision be reversed and remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The Report and Recommendation was entered on April 15, 2011. No timely objections have been filed.
Where timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b); SDIL-LR 73.1(b); Kanter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 590 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 2009); Goffman v. Gross, 59 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir. 1995). The Court "may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's recommended decision." Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F.Supp.786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993). In making this determination, the Court must look at all of the evidence contained in the record and "give 'fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objections have been made.'" Id., quoting 12 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3076.8, at p. 55 (1st ed. 1973) (1992 Pocket Part).
However, where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court need not conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Proud's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29).*fn1 Defendant's final decision regarding Plaintiff's supplemental security income is REVERSED and REMANDED for rehearing and reconsideration of the evidence under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment of reversal and remand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
G. PATRICK MURPHY United States District Judge