United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
May 18, 2015
SANDRA WYMAN, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins (d/e 21). Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff Sandra Wyman's Motion for Summary Reversal (d/e 15), grant Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 19), and affirm the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. The Commissioner determined that Plaintiff was not disabled and, therefore, denied Plaintiff's application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits.
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or before April 13, 2015. Neither party filed objections.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court Amay accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). The Court reviews de novo any part of the Report and Recommendation to which a proper objection has been made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). "If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error." Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (also noting that a party who fails to object to the report and recommendation waives appellate review of the factual and legal questions).
Judge Schanzle-Haskins found the Administrative Law Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Judge Schanzle-Haskins also addressed the issues raised by Plaintiff in her memorandum in support of her Motion for Summary Reversal (d/e 16) and found that the residual functional capacity determination was supported by substantial evidence.
After reviewing the record, the Report and Recommendation, the parties' Motions and memoranda, as well as the applicable law, this Court finds no clear error.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (d/e 21) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
(2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 19) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Reversal (d/e 15) is DENIED. THIS CASE IS CLOSED.