MANDY L. EDMONDS, Plaintiff,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. PATRICK MURPHY United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud (Doc. 27), recommending that Defendant’s final decision regarding Plaintiff’s disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income be reversed and the action be remanded for further proceedings. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Proud found that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in his consideration of the opinions of the state agency consultant, Dr. Tin. Moreover, Magistrate Proud found the ALJ erred in his consideration of Dr. Grater’s opinion, who was a treating doctor. Lastly, Judge Proud noted the ALJ indulged in his own medical conclusions to discount evidence that supported Dr. Grater’s opinion.
It is important to note that Magistrate Proud did not make any suggestion as to whether Plaintiff is disabled or what the ALJ’s decision should be on reconsideration. Rather, it is because of legal errors that a remand for rehearing and reconsideration of the evidence is recommended. Magistrate Judge Proud recommends Defendant’s decision be reversed and remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The Report and Recommendation was entered on October 4, 2012. No 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. 27). Defendant’s final decision regarding Plaintiff’s disability insurance and supplemental security income is REVERSED and REMANDED for rehearing and reconsideration of the evidence under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ...