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

MICHELLE L. HAGELE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-3100 ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. )

OPINION TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. Magistrate Judge: This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Michelle L. Hagele’s Exceptions and Objections to the Opinion of the Court and Exception and Objection to the Administrative Law Judge’s Proposed Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Opinion of Law (d/e 22) (Motion). The parties consented to proceed before this Court. Consent to the Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge and Reference Order entered May 5, 2020 (d/e 7). Thus, the Opinion entered August 24, 2021 (d/e 20) (Opinion) was the final judgment in the case, and the separate Judgment (d/e 21) was entered on August 26, 2021. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). Plaintiff, therefore, may not object to the District Court but may appeal directly to the Court of Appeals as any other final judgment.

(c)(1) and (c)(3). In light of the procedural posture of the case, the timeliness of the Motion under Rule 59, and the Motion’s

challenge to the correctness of the Opinion, the Court treats the Motion as a motion to alter or amend the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Obreicht v. Raemisch,

(7th Cir. 2008) (whether a post-

judgment motion should be treated as a Rule 59 motion depends on the substance of the motion and timing of the motion). To prevail, Hagele must demonstrate a manifest error of law or fact, or present newly discovered evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); LB Credit

Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp.

(7th Cir. 1995). The Motion merely restates Hagele’s previous arguments. Hagele has not presented any new evidence. The Court has also carefully reviewed the

Opinion, the parties= filings, and the record. The Court finds no manifest error of law or fact in the Opinion. The Court sees no basis for post- judgment relief. THEREFORE, Plaintiff Michelle L. Hagele’s Exceptions and

Objections to the Opinion of the Court and Exception and Objection to the Administrative Law Judge’s Proposed Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Opinion of Law (d/e 22) are DENIED. This case is closed.

ENTER: October 8, 2021 s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE