Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security
Order: The Magistrate Judge's R&R (Doc. 16 ) be, and the same hereby is, adopted as the order of this Court. The Commissioner's decision denying the plaintiff's application for benefits be, and the same hereby is, affirmed. Judge James G. Carr on 6/23/17. (Attachments: # 1 Report and Recommendation)(C,D)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Case No. 3:16CV1771
Nancy A. Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
This is a Social Security case in which the plaintiff, Douglas Wilson, appeals the
Commissioner’s decision denying his application for benefits.
Pending is Magistrate Judge Ruiz’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16), which rejected
Wilson’s arguments that the administrative law judge: 1) violated the treating-physician rule when
he rejected the opinion of Dr. Brendan Bauer; 2) gave insufficient weight to the opinion of
Dr. Nicholas Denbesten, a non-treating consultative examiner; and 3) gave undue weight to the
opinions of two State agency physicians.
Having found no merit in these arguments, the Magistrate Judge recommended that I affirm
the Commissioner’s decision.
Wilson has not objected to the R&R.
Because the failure to object to the R&R amounts to a waiver of Wilson’s right to de novo
review, Amison v. Legg, 2015 WL 853526, *1 (N.D. Ohio) (Lioi, J.), and because in any event I find
the R&R to be well-taken, it is hereby
The Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 16) be, and the same hereby is, adopted as the
order of this Court; and
The Commissioner’s decision denying the plaintiff’s application for benefits be, and
the same hereby is, affirmed.
/s/ James G. Carr
Sr. U.S. 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?