Haynes v. Commissioner of Social Security

C.D. Illinois

Haynes v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedJuly 16, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-01373

StatusUnknown

This text of Haynes v. Commissioner of Social Security (Haynes v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haynes v. Commissioner of Social Security, (C.D. Ill. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MICHAEL C.H., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 23-cv-1373-JES-JEH ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

On June 25, 2024, Magistrate Judge Jonathan Hawley filed a Report & Recommendation in the above captioned case. (Doc. 18). More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the filing of the Report & Recommendation, and no objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). See also Grosland v. Barnhart, 127 Fed. Appx. 226, 227–28 (7th Cir. 2005) (noting that for cases arising under § 636(b)(1), the “failure to file objections with the district judge waives the right to appeal all issues, both factual and legal.”) (quoting Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir.1986). See id., (finding this rule applies to Social Security cases) (citing Howell v. Sullivan, 950 F.2d 343, 347 (7th Cir. 1991). As the parties failed to present timely objections, any such objections have been waived. The relevant procedural history is sufficiently set forth in the comprehensive Report & Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff claims that the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) which the ALJ attributed to Plaintiff was not supported by substantial evidence and the ALJ failed to adequately consider the opinions of the State Agency reviewing psychologist and Plaintiff’s treating psychologists. The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s detailed discussion and recommendation. Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation (Doc. 18) of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Plaintiff’s brief and amended brief (Doc. 10, 11), seeking reversal of the Commissioner’s unfavorable determination are GRANTED. CONCLUSION IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Commissioner’s decision denying the

Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits be reversed; and this case be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with this Order pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Sentence Four.

Ordered this 16th day of July 2024. s/James E. Shadid JAMES E. SHADID UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MICHAEL C.H., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 23-cv-1373-JES-JEH ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

On June 25, 2024, Magistrate Judge Jonathan Hawley filed a Report & Recommendation in the above captioned case. (Doc. 18). More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the filing of the Report & Recommendation, and no objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). See also Grosland v. Barnhart, 127 Fed. Appx. 226, 227–28 (7th Cir. 2005) (noting that for cases arising under § 636(b)(1), the “failure to file objections with the district judge waives the right to appeal all issues, both factual and legal.”) (quoting Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir.1986). See id., (finding this rule applies to Social Security cases) (citing Howell v. Sullivan, 950 F.2d 343, 347 (7th Cir. 1991). As the parties failed to present timely objections, any such objections have been waived. The relevant procedural history is sufficiently set forth in the comprehensive Report & Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff claims that the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) which the ALJ attributed to Plaintiff was not supported by substantial evidence and the ALJ failed to adequately consider the opinions of the State Agency reviewing psychologist and Plaintiff’s treating psychologists. The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s detailed discussion and recommendation. Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation (Doc. 18) of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Plaintiff’s brief and amended brief (Doc. 10, 11), seeking reversal of the Commissioner’s unfavorable determination are GRANTED. CONCLUSION IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Commissioner’s decision denying the

Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits be reversed; and this case be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with this Order pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Sentence Four.

Ordered this 16th day of July 2024. s/James E. Shadid JAMES E. SHADID UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Haynes v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-commissioner-of-social-security-ilcd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack