From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martise v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
Mar 8, 2010
No. 4:08-CV-1380 CAS (E.D. Mo. Mar. 8, 2010)

Opinion

No. 4:08-CV-1380 CAS.

March 8, 2010


ORDER


This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Frederick R. Buckles, filed February 11, 2010. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Magistrate Judge recommended that the decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff's application for supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act be affirmed. Neither party has filed an objection to the recommendation.

After careful review of the matter, the Court concurs with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in the thorough Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge is sustained, adopted and incorporated herein. [Doc. 24]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff's application for supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act is AFFIRMED.

An appropriate judgment will accompany this order.


Summaries of

Martise v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
Mar 8, 2010
No. 4:08-CV-1380 CAS (E.D. Mo. Mar. 8, 2010)
Case details for

Martise v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:TONI L. MARTISE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

Date published: Mar 8, 2010

Citations

No. 4:08-CV-1380 CAS (E.D. Mo. Mar. 8, 2010)

Citing Cases

Thompson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

While the ALJ must determine Plaintiff's RFC based upon all relevant evidence, “the ALJ is not required to…

Steven T. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

While the ALJ must determine Plaintiff's RFC, based upon all relevant evidence, “the ALJ is not required to…