DOYLE v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER, No. 2:2020cv00191 - Document 24 (D. Me. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE accepting 23 Report and Recommended Decision By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (CCS) Modified on 7/20/2021 to remove fact sheet language(tcs).

Download PDF
DOYLE v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER Doc. 24 Case 2:20-cv-00191-JAW Document 24 Filed 07/20/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1183 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE LONA D., Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:20-cv-00191-JAW ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On June 2, 2020, the Plaintiff, Lona D., through counsel, filed a complaint in this Court, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) denial of her claim for social security disability benefits and supplemental security income. Compl. (ECF No. 1). On October 26, 2020, the SSA answered the Complaint, Answer (ECF No. 10), and filed the administrative record, Administrative R. (ECF No. 11). On December 10, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an itemized statement of errors, asserting four errors with the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Pl.’s Itemized Statement of Errors (ECF No. 15). On January 8, 2021, the SSA responded in opposition. Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Itemized Statement of Errors (ECF No. 19). Oral argument was held on March 9, 2021, Min. Entry (ECF No. 22), and on May 4, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Recommended Decision, finding no reversible error and recommending this Court affirm the SSA’s decision. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00191-JAW Document 24 Filed 07/20/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1184 Report and Recommended Decision (ECF No. 23). The Plaintiff did not object to the Recommended Decision. The Court reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, together with the entire record, and made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision. The Court concurs with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision and determines no further proceeding is necessary. 1. The Court AFFIRMS the Report and Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 23). 2. The Court ORDERS that the Commissioner’s decision be and hereby is AFFIRMED. 3. The Court DISMISSES without prejudice the Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1). SO ORDERED. /s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr. JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 20th day of July, 2021 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.