DESJARDINS v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER, No. 2:2022cv00354 - Document 23 (D. Me. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE accepting 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 13 SOCIAL SECURITY BRIEF By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (clp)

Download PDF
DESJARDINS v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE NICHOLAS D., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. MARTIN O’MALLEY, 1 Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 2:22-cv-00354-JDL ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Nicolas D. seeks judicial review of the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s (“the Commissioner”) final decision determining that he is not disabled and denying his application for 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 Karen Frink Wolf held a hearing on the Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors (ECF No. 13) on September 13, 2023 (ECF No. 21). In her Recommended Decision (ECF No. 22), which was docketed on December 21, 2023, the Magistrate Judge found no reversible error and recommended that the Court accept the Commissioner’s decision. The Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision concluded with a notice to the parties that failing to object would waive their right to 1 Martin O’Malley became the Commissioner of Social Security on December 20, 2023. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Martin O’Malley is substituted for Kilolo Kijakazi as the Defendant in this suit. See also 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West 2023) (“Any action instituted in accordance with this subsection shall survive notwithstanding any change in the person occupying the office of Commissioner of Social Security or any vacancy in such office.”). 1 Dockets.Justia.com de novo review and appeal. The time to object to the Recommended Decision expired without either party filing any objections. After careful consideration of the Recommended Decision and the underlying record, I concur with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. It is therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision (ECF No. 22) is hereby ACCEPTED, and the Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Dated this 22nd day of February, 2024. /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.