From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rudge v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE
Oct 22, 2012
CIVIL NO. 1:11-CV-440-DBH (D. Me. Oct. 22, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL NO. 1:11-CV-440-DBH

10-22-2012

TIMOTHY RUDGE, PLAINTIFF v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT


ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On September 30, 2012, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with copies to the parties, his Report and Recommended Decision. The time within which to file objections expired on October 17, 2012, 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.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.

S O O RDERED .

_________________

D. BROCK HORNBY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Rudge v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE
Oct 22, 2012
CIVIL NO. 1:11-CV-440-DBH (D. Me. Oct. 22, 2012)
Case details for

Rudge v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY RUDGE, PLAINTIFF v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

Date published: Oct 22, 2012

Citations

CIVIL NO. 1:11-CV-440-DBH (D. Me. Oct. 22, 2012)

Citing Cases

Poirier v. Colvin

In other words, "[t]he regulations do not require an ALJ to refer a claimant to a consultative specialist,…

Marcou v. Berryhill

See Opposition at 6-7. At oral argument, her counsel also cited Rudge v. Astrue, No. 1:11-cv-440-DBH, 2012 WL…