HURST v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER, No. 1:2023cv00117 - Document 17 (D. Me. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE accepting 16 Report and Recommended Decision By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (clp)

Download PDF
HURST v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE PATRICIA H., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:23-cv-00117-JDL ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Patricia H. seeks judicial review of the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s final decision determining that she is not disabled and denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income (ECF No. 1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(3) (West 2023) and D. Me. Local R. 16.3(a)(2), United States Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors (ECF No. 8) on September 11, 2023. The Magistrate Judge filed his Recommended Decision with the Court on September 22, 2023 (ECF No. 16), recommending that the Court vacate the Commissioner’s decision. The time within which to file objections has expired, and no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge notified the parties that failure to object would waive their right to de novo review and appeal. Having reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, I concur with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions as set forth in his Dockets.Justia.com Recommended Decision. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 16) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED, and the Commissioner’s decision is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West 2023) for further administrative action consistent with this Order. SO ORDERED. Dated this 24th day of October, 2023. /s/ Jon D. Levy CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.