Proctor v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
19
Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 17 is hereby adopted. The Court vacates the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and remands this case to the Commissioner for rehearing and a new decision. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 11/9/2018. (JLG)
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
SHAWNDOE PROCTOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:17CV2663
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff Shawndoe Proctor’s applications
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 the
Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker for preparation of a report and
recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1).
On September 25, 2018, the magistrate judge submitted a Report & Recommendation
(ECF No. 17) recommending that the Court vacate the Commissioner’s decision and the matter
be remanded for further proceedings because the ALJ failed to apply the correct legal standards.
Specifically, the magistrate judge found that the ALJ failed to articulate good reasons for
rejecting Plaintiff’s treating physician’s opinion. ECF No. 17 at PageID #: 1937-38. The
(1:17CV2663)
magistrate judge also found that the ALJ failed to show why Defendant did not meet Listing
1.04(B). Id. at PageID #: 1941-42.
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 October 9, 2018. On October 9, 2018, Defendant filed a Response to Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommended Decision, stating that it will not be filing objections. ECF No. 18.
Furthermore, Plaintiff has not filed any 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 Court vacates the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and remands this case to
the Commissioner for rehearing and a new decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 9, 2018
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
2
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?