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

MARSHA IRENE PETERSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 19-cv-03086 ) ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner ) of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

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

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (d/e 23) of United States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends that this Court (1) grant Defendant’s Motion for Remand for Further Proceedings Pursuant to Sentence Four of

(g) (d/e 18), (2) overrule Plaintiff Marsha Irene Peterson’s Objection to Motion for Remand Without Award of Benefits (d/e 19), and (3) remand this matter to Defendant for further proceedings. When a magistrate judge proposes factual findings and recommendations, the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). The district court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

The district court reviews de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to which a specific written objection has been made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);

(b)(1). “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.,

, 739 (7th Cir.

1999). Under the clear error standard, the district court can overrule a magistrate judge only if the district court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Weeks

v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co.,

, 943 (7th Cir. 1997). No timely objections to Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins’s Report and Recommendation have been made. Having thoroughly reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds no clear

error with respect to Judge Schanzle-Haskins’s recommendations or the analysis underlying the recommendations. It is, therefore, ORDERED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (d/e 23) of United

States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins is ACCEPTED. (2) Defendant’s Motion for Remand for Further Proceedings Pursuant to Sentence Four of

(g)

(d/e 18) is GRANTED. (3) Plaintiff Marsha Irene Peterson’s Objection to Motion for Remand Without Award of Benefits (d/e 19) is OVERRULED.

(4) This matter is remanded to Defendant for further proceedings. This case is CLOSED.

ENTER: July 10, 2020

/s/ Sue E. Myerscough SUE E. MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE