Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01412-RBJ-CBS
03-19-2013
SANDY SUSAN SEELY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
Honorable R. Brooke Jackson
ORDER
Sandy Susan Seely seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's denial of her claim for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits. Following the filing of the administrative record and full briefing by the parties, the Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer with a request that he submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for ruling on Ms. Seely's appeal.
On January 17, 2013 Judge Shaffer issued an order recommending that the Commissioner's final decision be affirmed and, therefore, that this civil action be dismissed [docket #19]. Ms. Seely through counsel filed a timely objection in which she disputed two aspects of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation. [#20]. The Commission filed a response [#22], making the matter ripe for this Court's de novo consideration. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has reviewed de novo the administrative record, the parties' briefs, Judge Shaffer's order, the objection, and the response. Based upon that review, the Court finds that the
ALJ's decision was detailed, substantiated and well-reasoned; and that the magistrate judge's recommendation carefully examined and analyzed the administrative record and the applicable case law. I find no need to repeat those findings and conclusions here. This Court therefore ratifies the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the magistrate judge's order [#19]. The objection [#20] is denied. The magistrate judge's recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED. The commissioner's decision denying benefits is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge