Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Jan. 29, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued January 29, 2020 Decided January 29, 2020 Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge No. 19-1893 Appeal from the United States District Court for the PHILLIP LAY, Northern District of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, Eastern Division. v. No. 17 CV 8285 ANDREW M. SA
Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued January 29, 2020 Decided January 29, 2020 Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge No. 19-1893 Appeal from the United States District Court for the PHILLIP LAY, Northern District of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, Eastern Division. v. No. 17 CV 8285 ANDREW M. SAU..
More
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued January 29, 2020
Decided January 29, 2020
Before
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
No. 19-1893 Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
PHILLIP LAY, Northern District of Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Eastern Division.
v.
No. 17 CV 8285
ANDREW M. SAUL, Young B. Kim,
Commissioner of Social Security, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant-Appellee.
Order
Phillip Lay’s application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act was re-
jected administratively, with review culminating in an adverse decision by an adminis-
trative law judge. The dispute moved to district court, where the parties agreed to have
a magistrate judge make the final decision. 28 U.S.C. §636(c). The magistrate judge con-
cluded that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and does not reflect
a material legal error.
2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41780 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 14, 2019). We substan-
tially agree with the magistrate judge’s analysis, and on that basis the judgment is
AFFIRMED.