Bokisa v. Commissioner of Social Security
Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 14 , is hereby adopted. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 2/6/2017. (JLG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
PAULA MARY BOKISA,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
CASE NO. 1:16CV00083
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff Paula Mary Bokisa’s application
for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) after a hearing in the above-captioned case. That
decision became the final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security when the
Appeals Council denied the request to review the ALJ’s decision. The claimant sought judicial
review of the Commissioner’s decision, and the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge
James R. Knepp, II for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636
and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1).
The magistrate judge submitted a Report (ECF No. 14) recommending that the decision
of the Commissioner be affirmed as supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the
magistrate judge recommends that the Court find: (1) the ALJ did not err in finding Plaintiff’s
gastrointestinal problems were not severe; (2) the gastrointestinal problems were considered in
the ALJ’s RFC determination; and (3) the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial
evidence. ECF No. 14 at PageID #: 894. In addition, the magistrate judge recommends that the
Court find the ALJ’s explanations for partially discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony are reasonable
and supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. at PageID #: 898. Finally, the magistrate
judge recommends that the Court find the ALJ did not err in finding Plaintiff capable of
performing her past work of accounting clerk, customer service clerk, and floral designer because
substantial evidence supports the hypothetical questions the ALJ posed to the Vocational Expert.
Id. at PageID #: 899.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that objections to a Report and Recommendation must
be filed within 14 days after service. Objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation were, therefore, due on February 1, 2017. Neither party has filed objections,
evidencing satisfaction with the magistrate judge’s recommendations. Any further review by this
Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v. Arn,
728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and
Human Services, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50
(6th Cir. 1981).
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge is hereby adopted.
The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. Judgment will be entered in
favor of Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 6, 2017
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?