Byars v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, C.D. Illinois

Byars v. Commissioner of Social Security

Trial Court Opinion

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

MELISSA K. BYARS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 20-cv-3154 ) KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ) Acting 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 22). Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends that this Court: (1) allow Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 16); (2) deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 20); and (3) reverse and remand pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 405

(g) sentence four the decision of the Commissioner to deny Social Security disability benefits to Plaintiff. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or before August 19, 2021. 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).

After reviewing the record, the Report and Recommendation, and the parties’ motions and memoranda, as well as the applicable law, the Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Schanzle-

Haskins’ Report and Recommendation. It is, therefore, ORDERED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (d/e 22) is

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 16) is GRANTED. (3) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 20) is DENIED.

(4) The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED AND REMANDED pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 405

(g) sentence four. (5) This case is CLOSED.

ENTER: August 20, 2021. FOR THE COURT:

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

Reference

Status
Unknown