LAMPROS v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER, No. 2:2019cv00325 - Document 17 (D. Me. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: 16 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (aks)

Download PDF
LAMPROS v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER Case 2:19-cv-00325-JDL Document 17 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 2 Doc. 17 PageID #: 1967 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE JUSTIN A. L., Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) 2:19-cv-00325-JDL ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Justin A. L. seeks judicial review of the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income (ECF No. 1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(3) and D. Me. Local R. 16.3(a)(2), a hearing on Justin A. L.’s Statement of Errors (ECF No. 11) was held before United States Magistrate Judge John H. Rich III on March 13, 2020. The Magistrate Judge filed his Recommended Decision with the Court on June 3, 2020 (ECF No. 16). The time within which to file objections to the Recommended Decision 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 parties’ arguments and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, I concur with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions as set forth in the Recommended Decision and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 16) Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-00325-JDL Document 17 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1968 of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED, and the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Dated this 13th day of July, 2020. /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.