SHREWSBERRY v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER, No. 1:2020cv00427 - Document 34 (D. Me. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: 33 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (jgd)

Download PDF
SHREWSBERRY v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER Doc. 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE JOSHUA S., ) ) ) ) ) 1:20-cv-00427-JDL ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration Defendant. ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Joshua S., the Plaintiff, filed a Complaint (ECF No. 1) and Itemized Statement of Errors (ECF No. 22) requesting vacatur and remand of the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) January 29, 2020 Decision (ECF No. 10 at 20-31) which concluded that he was not disabled for the purposes of Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act. United States Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison filed his Recommended Decision with the Court on October 27, 2021 (ECF No. 33), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2021) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The time within which to file objections has expired, and no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge provided notice that a party’s failure to object would waive the right to de novo review and appeal. I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire record, and have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by 1 Dockets.Justia.com the Magistrate Judge. I concur with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision and determine that no further proceedings are necessary. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 33) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED. The ALJ’s Decision is vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 1, 2021. /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.