Wooden v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 19

Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 18 , 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 6/19/2017. (JLG)

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT WOODEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:16CV1494

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff Robert Wooden’s applications for
a Period of Disability (“POD”), Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), and Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”) 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 David A. Ruiz 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. 18) recommending that the decision
of the Commissioner be affirmed. Specifically, the magistrate judge recommends that the Court
find: (1) the ALJ sufficiently set forth good reasons for rejecting the opinion of Plaintiff’s
treating physician, Dr. Harwell (ECF No. 18 at PageID #: 651-56); (2) the ALJ adequately

(1:16CV1494)
considered relevant factors and sufficiently explained the weight accorded to the opinion of
Plaintiff’s nurse, Ms. Obias (ECF No. 18 at PageID #: 657-60); and (3) the ALJ complied with
the articulation requirement applicable to non-medical sources when the ALJ explained the
weight ascribed to the opinion of Plaintiff’s social worker, Mr. Wooderd (ECF No. 18 at PageID
#: 661-62).
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 June 15, 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.

June 19, 2017
Date

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