Acosta v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

Memorandum of Opinion and Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 20 . The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant. Judge Benita Y. Pearson 7/3/2017 (other related doc 1 ). (C,KA) Modified text 7/3/2017 (C,KA).

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:16CV1737

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff Carmen Acosta’s application for
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. 20) recommending that the decision
of the Commissioner be affirmed. Specifically, the magistrate judge recommends that the Court
find: (1) the ALJ’s decision regarding the functional limitations caused by Plaintiff’s kidney
stones, hyperparathyroidism, and other symptoms is supported by substantial evidence (ECF No.
20 at PageID #: 849-51); (2) the ALJ’s decision regarding functional limitations caused by
Plaintiff’s medications is supported by substantial evidence (ECF No. 20 at PageID #: 852-55);

(1:16CV1737)
and (3) the ALJ’s decision regarding Plaintiff’s mental impairments is supported by substantial
evidence (ECF No. 20 at PageID #: 855-58).
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 30, 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, 94950 (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.

July 3, 2017
Date

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