Givhan v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 24

Opinion and Order Adopting 23 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 5/27/15. (P,R)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

KIARA GIVHAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOC. SECURITY
ADMIN.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:13 CV 611
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James R.
Knepp (“R&R”) issued and served on counsel for Plaintiff Kiara Givhan via the Court’s
electronic case filing system on April 29, 2015. (Doc #: 23.)
Plaintiff, who was born on August 27, 1989, seeks judicial review of the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Social Security supplemental
security income. Plaintiff applied for and received disability benefits as a child. Upon her
eighteenth birthday, she was reassessed to determine if she met the definition of disability for
adults and, ultimately, her claim was finally denied. (See Doc #: 23, at 1-2.)
In a 16-page R&R, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the Commissioner’s decision
denying SSI benefits applied the correct legal standards and was supported by substantial
evidence. Accordingly, he recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. The
Magistrate Judge also informed counsel for Plaintiff that any objections to the R&R must be
filed within fourteen days of its service. (Id. at 16.)

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 court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (emphasis added). In this case, 30 days have elapsed since the R&R was
issued, and Plaintiff has filed neither an objection nor a request for an extension of time to file
one.
The failure to timely file written objections to an R&R constitutes a waiver of a de novo
review by the district court of any issues covered in the R&R. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th
Cir. 1984); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Despite the lack of objection, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s thorough,
well-written R&R, agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings, and ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation that the Commissioner’s decision be AFFIRMED and the complaint
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Dan A. Polster May 27, 2015
Dan Aaron Polster
United States District Judge

-2-