Ward v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND DIVISION

JULIE L. W., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-04141-SLD-RLH ) FRANK J. BISIGNANO, Commissioner of ) Social Security,1 ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Plaintiff Julie L. W. filed an application for disability insurance benefits. The Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denied her application, and Julie seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Julie’s Br., ECF No. 7. Before the Court are Julie’s Brief; the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Affirmance, ECF No. 11; Julie’s Reply, ECF No. 12; and United States Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Hanna’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 13, which recommends denying Julie’s request to reverse and remand the unfavorable decision of the Commissioner. 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

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Frank Bisignano is substituted for his predecessor. The Clerk is directed to update the docket accordingly. 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). 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 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) “applied the correct legal standard, and substantial evidence supports the decision.” Barnett v. Barnhart, 381 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 2004). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). In issuing a decision, 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’ pleadings, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 13, is ADOPTED. The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary

Affirmance, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED, and the decision denying Julie’s application for disability insurance benefits is AFFIRMED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case. Entered this 18th day of September, 2025. s/ Sara Darrow SARA DARROW CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE