IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

LAUREN A. ESTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 18-cv-3300 ) ANDREW SAUL1, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle- Haskins (d/e 14). Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff Lauren Eston’s Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 10), grant Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 12), and affirm the decision of the Defendant Commissioner.

1 Andrew Saul has been appointed as Commissioner of Social Security. As such, he is automatically substituted in as the property party defendant in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or before January 17, 2020. 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). AIf no objection

or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.@ Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp.,

, 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 addressed each of the issues raised by Plaintiff in her Brief (d/e 10). 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 14) is

ADOPTED in its entirety. (2) Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 10) is DENIED.

(3) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 12) is GRANTED. (4) The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

(5) This case is CLOSED. ENTERED: January 24, 2020 FOR THE COURT:

s/ Sue E. Myerscough SUE E. MYERSCOUGH