Cases

PER CURIAM: We have reviewed the briefs and the relevant parts of the record. Giving due deference to the Administrative Law Judge’s opportunity to make credibility determinations and responsibility for weighing the evidence, we conclude that the magistrate judge’s determination that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny Miguel Lopez’s applications for a period of disability, disa

107 F.3d 22 97 CJ C.A.R. 255 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or

OPINION PER CURIAM. T. Montgomery Foley appeals the District Court’s decision affirming the Commissioner’s denial of his request for benefits. We will affirm. In February 2002, Foley filed an application for supplemental security income which the Social Security Agency denied. Foley alleged disability due to back and neck conditions, cervical disc disease, arthritic knees, neck pain, a

OPINION PER CURIAM. T. Montgomery Foley appeals the District Court’s decision affirming the Commissioner’s denial of his request for benefits. We will affirm. In February 2002, Foley filed an application for supplemental security income which the Social Security Agency denied. Foley alleged disability due to back and neck conditions, cervical disc disease, arthritic knees, neck pain, a

OPINION BAYLSON, District Judge: Appellant Heather Rounds appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the decision of a Social Security Administration Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Although we find no error in the ALJ’s rulings on several issues, we vacate in part and remand because t

ORDER The opinion filed on August 4, 2015, and published at 795 F.3d 1177, is hereby amended and replaced by the amended opinion filed concurrently with this order. With these amendments, Judges W. Fletcher, Hurwitz, and Baylson have voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judges W. Fletcher and Hurwitz have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc

ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN, District Judge. On March 27, 2012, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with copies to counsel, his Report and Recommended Decision. The time within which to file objections expired on April 16, 2012, and no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge notified the parties that failure to object would waive

ORDER REVERSING DISABILITY DECISION AND REMANDING TO COMMISSIONER Blackburn, United States District Judge The matter before me is plaintiffs Complaint [# l],1 filed August 29, 2014, seeking review of the Commissioner’s decision denying plaintiffs claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. The Plaintiff Karen Anne Miller (“Miller” or the “Plaintiff’) seeks review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) that she was not disabled during the relevant time periods and, therefore, she was not entitled to disability benefits on her own earnings record or disabled widows’ benefits as provided for in T

390 F.Supp.2d 858 (2005) Jon L. HARTMAN, Plaintiff, v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. No. 4:05 CV 3090. United States District Court, D. Nebraska. October 12, 2005. *859 Warren L. Reimer, Reimer Law Firm, Norfolk, NE, for Plaintiff. Office of General Counsel Social Security Ad

ORDER SARAH EVANS BARKER, District Judge. Kathleen A. Warren seeks judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act. *1210As addressed in this Order,

PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-appellant Gregory Warren appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Thomas J. McAvoy, Senior Judge) dismissing his claim for damages and litigation fees under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Because the Privacy Act guarantees access only to an individual’s own r

PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-Appellant George Brault appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Murtha, J.) affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying Brault’s application for disability benefits. We conclude the decision of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) was supported by substantial e

496 F.3d 1253 (2007) Lillian INGRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Michael J. Astrue, Defendant-Appellee. No. 06-14602. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. August 23, 2007. *1254 *1255 *1256

OPINION AND ORDER GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Darren Trancynger brings this action to review the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, finding that Trancynger was not disabled and thus not eligible for disability insurance1 benefits. Trancynger seeks to have the case remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings. See

*230 PER CURIAM: Juatassa Sims appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits, contending that the administrative law judge: (1) failed to afford proper weight to a psychologist’s opin

OPINION AND ORDER JAMES L. COTT, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Constance Craig brings this action seeking judicial review of a final determination by Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying Craig’s application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and social security income (“SSI”). Craig moved, and the Commissioner cross-moved, for jud

OPINION AND ORDER Susan Collins, United States Magistrate Judge Plaintiff Danny Holland appeals to the district court from a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his application under the Social Security Act (the “Act”) for disability insurance benefits and disabled widower’s benefits (together, “DIB”).1 (DE

OPINION AND ORDER Dan Aaron Polster, United States District Judge Plaintiff Nichelle Johnson (“Plaintiff’) challenges the final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. (“Act”). For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner’s final

MEMORANDUM OPINION SARA LIOI, District Judge. Before the Court is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in the above-entitled action. Under the relevant statute: [¶]... ] Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the