From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hively v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
Feb 18, 2010
CAUSE NO.: 3:09-CV-24-TS (N.D. Ind. Feb. 18, 2010)

Opinion

CAUSE NO.: 3:09-CV-24-TS.

February 18, 2010


ORDER


Plaintiff Sharisa L. Hively appeals the Commissioner's final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. The Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein for a report and recommendation on January 28, 2009. On January 27, 2010, Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein filed his Report and Recommendations [DE 26] recommending that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and the case be remanded for further proceedings because the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not articulate the weight given to Hively's treating physician, failed to articulate the weight given to Hively's examining physicians, and improperly evaluated Hively's credibility.

This Court's review of the magistrate's report and recommendation is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) which provides in part:

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions.

The statute requires objections to the magistrate's report and recommendations to be made within ten days of service of a copy of the report. Id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) (setting forth procedures for objecting to a magistrate's report and recommendation and the district court's resolution of any objections). The Commissioner has not objected to the Report and Recommendation and the time for making objections has now passed.

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendations prepared by the magistrate, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations [DE 26] and ACCEPTS the recommended disposition. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings in accordance with Magistrate Nuechterlein's Report and Recommendation.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hively v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
Feb 18, 2010
CAUSE NO.: 3:09-CV-24-TS (N.D. Ind. Feb. 18, 2010)
Case details for

Hively v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:SHARISA. L. HIVELY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

Date published: Feb 18, 2010

Citations

CAUSE NO.: 3:09-CV-24-TS (N.D. Ind. Feb. 18, 2010)

Citing Cases

Perez ex rel. Velez v. Berryhill

The Court, however, is not suggesting that the ALJ's credibility determination is incorrect or patently…

Bennett v. Berryhill

However, greater elaboration and explanation is necessary to ensure a full and fair review of the evidence…