PHINNEY v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER, No. 1:2023cv00183 - Document 16 (D. Me. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE accepting 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 9 SOCIAL SECURITY BRIEF By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (clp)

Download PDF
PHINNEY v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE JOHN P., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. MARTIN O’MALLEY, 1 Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 1:23-cv-00183-JDL ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE John P. seeks judicial review of the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s final decision determining that he is not disabled and denying his application for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits (ECF No. 1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(3) (West 2024) and D. Me. Local R. 16.3(a)(2), United States Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors (ECF No. 9) on December 13, 2023. The Magistrate Judge filed her Recommended Decision with the Court on March 15, 2024 (ECF No. 15), recommending that the Court affirm 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. Martin O’Malley is now the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. He is therefore substituted as a party in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d); 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West 2024). 1 1 Dockets.Justia.com Having reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, I concur with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions as set forth in her Recommended Decision. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 15) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED, and the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Dated this 3rd day of April, 2024. /s/ Jon D. Levy 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.