Goddard v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

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)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ANGELA GODDARD, Plaintiff, vs. COMMISSIONER OF SOC. SECURITY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 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 objections. 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 -2-

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?