The opinion of the court was delivered by: James Knoll Gardner United States District Judge
NOW, this 15th day of March, 2011, upon consideration of the following documents:
(1) Decision of Administrative Law Judge Melvin D. Benitz dated May 23, 2008;
(2) Complaint filed October 8, 2009 (Document 1);
(3) Answer filed December 16, 2009 (Document 5);
(4) Plaintiff's Brief and Statement of Issues in Support of Request for Review, which brief and statement of issues was filed April 9, 2010 (Document 12);
(5) Defendant's Response to Request for Review of Plaintiff, which response was filed June 4, 2010 (Document 15);
(6) Plaintiff's Reply Brief filed June 25, 2010 (Document 18);
(7) Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge filed January 28, 2011 (Document 20);
(8) Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, which objections were filed February 14, 2011 (Document 21); and
(9) The Commissioner's Response to Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which response was filed February 25, 2011 (Document 23); after a through review of the record in this matter; it appearing that plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Strawbridge's Report and Recommendation are essentially a restatement of the issues raised in Plaintiff's Brief and Statement of Issues in Support of Plaintiff's Request for Review and are without merit; it further appearing after de novo review of this matter that Magistrate Judge Strawbridge's Report and Recommendation correctly determined the legal and factual issues presented,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Strawbridge's Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted.*fn1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's request for ...