From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Regadanz v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION
Mar 19, 2013
CASE NO.: 1:12-CV-14-TLS (N.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2013)

Opinion

CASE NO.: 1:12-CV-14-TLS

03-19-2013

WILLIAM REGADANZ, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant.


ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 16] of United States Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey, which was filed on November 13, 2012. In his Report and Recommendation, Judge Cosbey recommends that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. Judge Cosbey also gave notice that within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings or recommendations.

This Court's review of a magistrate's report and recommendation is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 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 or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
The statute permits objections to the magistrate's report and recommendations to be made within fourteen 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 Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation submitted by Judge Cosbey and finds that his proposed disposition is well taken. As of the date of this Order, no objection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed, and the time for making objections has now passed. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation prepared by Judge Cosbey, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 16] in its entirety and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision for the reasons set forth in Judge Cosbey's analysis.

____________________________

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Summaries of

Regadanz v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION
Mar 19, 2013
CASE NO.: 1:12-CV-14-TLS (N.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2013)
Case details for

Regadanz v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM REGADANZ, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

Date published: Mar 19, 2013

Citations

CASE NO.: 1:12-CV-14-TLS (N.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2013)