Herbert v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 20

Memorandum Opinion: The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds it to be very thoroughly written and reasoned. Therefore, the Court accepts the same. The Court concludes that the Commissioner's decision to deny plaintif f's applications for Period of Disability, Disability Insurance Benefits, and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 416(i), 423, 1381 et seq. was supported by substantial evidence and must be affirmed. (Related Doc. No. 19 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 5/25/2018. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
KIM A. HERBERT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-1462
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in the
above-entitled action. Under the relevant statute:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, 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)(C). The R&R was filed on May 1, 2018. (See Doc. No. 19.) No objections
were filed on or before the fourteen-day deadline, and no extension of time has been sought.
The failure to file written objections to a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation
constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of an issue covered in the
report. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh’g denied, 474
U.S. 1111 (1986); see United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
The R&R recommends affirming the Commissioner’s decision. The Court has reviewed
the R&R and finds it to be very thoroughly written and reasoned. Therefore, the Court accepts the
same.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Commissioner’s decision to deny plaintiff’s
applications for Period of Disability, Disability Insurance Benefits, and Supplemental Security
Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423, 1381 et seq.
was supported by substantial evidence and must be AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2018
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE