Lyons v. Commissioner of Social Security
Order Adopting 20 Report and Recommendation. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 3/8/2018. (S,L)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
TONY L. LYONS,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
CASE NO. 1:17CV601
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff Tony L. Lyon’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 Kathleen B.
Burke for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local
Rule 72.2(b)(1). On February 16, 2018, the magistrate judge submitted a Report (ECF No. 20)
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
Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ deprived him of a full and fair hearing is without merit. ECF
No. 20 at PageID#: 1181—83. In addition, the magistrate judge found that the ALJ did not err, at
step three of the disability analysis, in finding that Plaintiff did not meet or equal Listing 1.05C
because he did not have stump complications that rendered him unable to wear a prosthesis. Id.
at PageID#: 1184—85. Next, the magistrate judge found that the ALJ’s residual functional
capacity (“RFC”) assessment was supported by substantial evidence. Id. at PageID#: 1186—89.
Lastly, the magistrate judge found that Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ, at step five of the
disability analysis, erred in the RFC assessment and, therefore, in the hypothetical question to
Deborah Lee, the Vocational Expert, is also without merit. Id. at PageID#: 1189.
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 March 2, 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.
March 8, 2018
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
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?