Turnquist v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND DIVISION

DEAN W. T., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-04113-SLD-RLH ) FRANK J. BISIGNANO,1 ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Plaintiff Dean W. T. filed an application for disability insurance benefits. The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“the Commissioner”) denied his application, and Dean seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Compl., ECF No. 1. Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Hanna’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 14, which recommends affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying Dean’s application for benefits. When a magistrate judge considers a pretrial matter dispositive of a party’s claim or defense, he must enter a recommended disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). Parties may object within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the recommended disposition. Id. 72(b)(2). The district judge considers de novo the portions of the recommended disposition that were properly objected to and may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition or return it to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Id. 72(b)(3). If no objection, or only partial objection, is made, the district judge reviews the unobjected portions of the recommendation for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Frank J. Bisignano is substituted for his predecessor. The Clerk is directed to update the docket accordingly. Neither party has objected to any portion of Judge Hanna’s Report and Recommendation, so the Court reviews it for clear error only. The Court notes that Judge Hanna’s review was limited to determining only whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standard and whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. See Barnett v. Barnhart, 381 F.3d 664, 668

(7th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” McKinzey v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 884, 889 (7th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). The ALJ does not have “to provide a complete and written evaluation of every piece of testimony and evidence, but must build a logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion.” Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929, 935 (7th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted). After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 14, is ADOPTED. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner’s decision in this matter is AFFIRMED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case.

Entered this 30th day of September, 2025. s/ Sara Darrow SARA DARROW CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE