Reid v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

Order: The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16 ) be, and the same hereby is, adopted as the order of the court. The Commissioner's decision be, and the same hereby is, affirmed. Judge James G. Carr on 6/29/18. (Attachments: # 1 Report and Recommendation)(C,D)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Johnny Reid,

Case No. 3:17CV1533
Plaintiff
ORDER

v.
Nancy Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant

This is a Social Security case in which the plaintiff, Johnny Reid, appeals from the
Commissioner’s decision denying his application for benefits.
Reid first sought disability benefits in 2012, but an administrative law judge determined that
he was not disabled and denied his application. (Doc. 11 at 131–50). He re-applied in 2014, but a
different ALJ, in the decision that is the subject of this appeal, concluded that Reid was not disabled.
(Id. at 23–36). According to this ALJ, there was no “new and material evidence . . . submitted
documenting a significant change in [Reid’s] condition since [the first] decision was issued.” (Id.
at 33).
Pending is Magistrate Judge Greenberg’s Report and Recommendation, which recommends
that I affirm the Commissioner’s decision. (Doc. 16). The Magistrate Judge found that substantial
evidence supported the second ALJ’s decision that there were no changed circumstances warranting
a different result in Reid’s second application for benefits.

As the Magistrate Judge explained, the Circuit’s decision in Drummond v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., 126 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1997), and a relevant administrative rule (Acquiescence Ruling 984(6)) “clearly establish that a subsequent ALJ is bound by the legal and factual findings of a prior
ALJ unless the claimant presents new and material evidence that there has been either a change in
the law or a change in the claimant’s condition.” (Doc. 16 at 23).
In the Magistrate Judge’s view, the ALJ had cited substantial evidence to support her
conclusions that neither Reid’s physical impairments nor his mental limitations had changed. (Id.
at 23–38).
The Magistrate Judge ordered that Reid file objections within fourteen days after the date of
the R&R, and he advised the parties that a failure to object would operate as a waiver. (Doc. 16 at
39). Nearly a month after that deadline, however, Reid has not filed an objection. As a result, Reid
has waived his right to a de novo review of the R&R. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985).
It is, therefore
ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) be, and the same
hereby is, adopted as the order of the court; and

2.

The Commissioner’s decision be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

So ordered.
/s/ James G. Carr
Sr. U.S. District Judge

2