Seely v. Astrue
Filing
23
ORDER. This Court 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 Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 03/19/13. (alvsl)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01412-RBJ-CBS
SANDY SUSAN SEELY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
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.
DATED this 19th day of March, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
