SEIDERS v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER, No. 2:2021cv00293 - Document 21 (D. Me. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE accepting 20 Report and Recommendations for 12 Social Security Statement of Errors/Fact Sheet. By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (mnd)

Download PDF
SEIDERS v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER Doc. 21 Case 2:21-cv-00293-JDL Document 21 Filed 11/07/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1782 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE LILLIAN S., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. No. 2:21-cv-00293-JDL ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Lillian S. seeks judicial review of the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s final decision determining that she is not disabled and denying her application for Title XVI Supplemental Security Income. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(3) 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. 12) on June 17, 2022 (ECF No. 19). The Magistrate Judge filed her Recommended Decision with the Court on September 13, 2022 (ECF No. 20), 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. 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-00293-JDL Document 21 Filed 11/07/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1783 (ECF No. 20) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED, and the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Dated this 7th day of November, 2022. /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.