Simpson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein the 16 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. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 1/31/2017. (E,CK)

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DARRYL SIMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:16CV00314

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff Darryl Simpson’s application for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) and 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 this Court referred the
case to Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke 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 and Recommendation (ECF No. 16)
recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. Specifically, the Magistrate
Judge recommends that the Court find: (1) that Plaintiff has not shown that the Residual
Functional Capacity (“RFC”) as assessed by the ALJ is not supported by substantial evidence; (2)
the Grid Rules 201.09 and 201.10 were not applicable; and (3) the ALJ did not err in relying on
the testimony of Vocational Expert Brett Salkin (“VE”) to support the ALJ’s Step Five finding

(1:16CV00314)
that there was work in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. ECF No. 16 at PageID
#: 929. In addition, she recommends that the Court find that the ALJ did not err with respect to
the ALJ’s Step Five finding and the ALJ not finding Plaintiff disabled at age 50. Id.
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 were, therefore,
due on January 19, 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.

January 31, 2017
Date

/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge

2