Carroll v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

Memorandum of Opinion Order Adopting 18 Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 1/22/2018. (S,L)

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ROY M. CARROLL,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:16CV2875

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff Roy M. Carroll’s application for
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 this Court referred the case
to Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp II for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). On January 5, 2018, the magistrate judge
submitted a Report (ECF No. 18) recommending that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s
decision as supported by substantial evidence and made pursuant to proper legal standards.
Specifically, the magistrate judge found: (1) the ALJ did not err at Step Two of the disability
1

Carolyn W. Colvin was the original Defendant. She was sued in an official capacity as
a public officer. On January 23, 2017, Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of
Social Security. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Berryhill’s name has been automatically
substituted as a party.

(1:16CV2875)
analysis because he considered the effects of all Plaintiff’s impairments—including his mental
impairments—as they related to his residual functional capacity (“RFC”); and, (2) the ALJ
properly considered both Plaintiff’s severe and non-severe impairments in the remaining steps of
the analysis, and in his conclusion Plaintiff was capable of performing his past relevant work of
real estate agent and customer service representative. ECF No. 18 at PageID #: 689.
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, 2018. 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 22, 2018
Date

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

2