Goddard v. Commissioner of Social Security
Opinion and Order For the reasons stated in the Order, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's 14 Report and Recommendation and affirms the Commissioner's decision. Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 5/17/2017. (K,K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
COMMISSIONER OF SOC. SECURITY,
CASE NO. 1:16 CV 1389
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
OPINION AND ORDER
On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff Angela Goddard filed this action challenging the final decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying her applications for Period
of Disability, Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”)
under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 416(I), 423, 1831 et seq.
(Doc #: 1.) Plaintiff contends that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) was
not supported by substantial evidence in three ways: (1) the evidence demonstrated that
Plaintiff’s severe osteoarthritis of the bilateral knees meets the requirements for Listing 1.02,
(2) the ALJ gave insufficient evidentiary weight to the opinion of medical expert Dr. Kravitz,
and (3) the ALJ incorrectly found that Plaintiff’s complaints were not supported by the record.
On May 1, 2017, after reviewing the merits briefs and the record, Magistrate Judge
Jonathan D. Greenberg issued a forty-two (42) page Report and Recommendation recommending
that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s final decision (“R & R”). (Doc #: 14.) On page 42 of
the R & R, Magistrate Judge Greenberg notified the parties that
[a]ny objections to this [R & R] must be filed with the Clerk of Court within
fourteen (14) days after the party objecting has been served with a copy of this [R
& R]. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file objections within the specified time
may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See United States v.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh’g
denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986).
(R & R 42.) Furthermore, under the relevant statute,
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the R & R], 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). It is now sixteen (16) days since the parties were served with a copy of
the R & R, and Plaintiff has neither filed objections nor a motion for an extension of time to file
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s lengthy and thorough R & R and agrees
with Magistrate Judge Greenberg that the Commissioner’s final decision should be affirmed for
the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R & R
(Doc #: 14), and AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff DIB and SSI.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Dan A. Polster May 17, 2017
Dan Aaron Pollster
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?