Manning v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner, No. 5:2011cv00253 - Document 11 (D. Vt. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING Magistrate Judge's 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION denying 6 Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner, granting 7 Motion for Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 9/19/2012. (pam)

Download PDF
U.S. DIS';" DISTRICT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT JON MANNING, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) F . 2Ut2 SEP 19 AM to: 20 CLERK Case No. 5:11-cv-253 OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Docs. 6, '7, and lO) This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's August 17,2012 Report and Recommendation (R & R) in the above-captioned matter. Neither party has objected to the R & R, and the deadline for doing so has expired. A district judge must make a de novo determination of those portions ofa magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which an objection is made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I); Cullen v. United States, 194 F.3d 401,405 (2d Cir. 1999). The district judge may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord Cullen, 194 F.3d at 405. A district judge, however, is not required to review the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of a report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. See Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F .2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 (1974). In his twenty-two page R & R, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the factual record and the competing motions. He also reviewed the March 21,2001 decision of Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Paul Martin, concluding that the ALJ properly determined that Plaintiff Jon Manning was not disabled under the Social Security Act from his alleged disability onset date of September 13,2006 through the date of the decision. The Magistrate Judge thus recommended that the court DENY the Plaintiffs motion to reverse (Doc. 6) and GRANT the Government's motion to affirm (Doc. 7.) The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions. For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R & R as the court's Opinion and Order in this case and hereby DENIES Plaintiffs motion to reverse (Doc. 6) and GRANTS the Government's motion to affirm (Doc. 7.) SO ORDERED. Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this I '! ~y of September, 2012. ~e United States District Court 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.