Gallagher v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

Order Adopting as it's own the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Ruiz (re 17 ). In the alternative, the court finds that, even upon de novo review, Magistrate Judge Ruiz's findings are well taken, andadopts as its own his R. & R. for the reasons stated in the R. & R. The Court hereby affirms the Commissioner's final decision. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 6/27/2017. (R,Sh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

SUSAN AMY GALLAGHER,
Plaintiff
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:16 CV 1831
JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

ORDER

On July 20, 2016, Plaintiff Susan Amy Gallagher (“Plaintiff” or “Gallagher”), represented
by counsel, filed the above-captioned case, seeking judicial review of Defendant Commissioner of
Social Security’s (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”) final determination denying Plaintiff’s
application for social security disability benefits and supplementary security income for lack of
disability. (Compl., ECF No.1, at 1.) On that same day, Petitioner also filed a Motion to Proceed
in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3). Also on July 20, 2016, the court referred the matter to Magistrate
Judge James R. Knepp, II (“Judge Knepp”), pursuant to Local Rule 72.2.
On August 4, 2016, Judge Knepp granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.
(ECF No. 5.) On October 27, 2016, the court reassigned the matter to Magistrate Judge David A.
Ruiz (“Judge Ruiz”).
On November 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Brief on the Merits (ECF No. 14.) On January 9,

2017, Defendant filed a Brief on the Merits (ECF No. 15). On January 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
Reply Brief (ECF No. 17.)
On June 12, 2017, Judge Ruiz issued his Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”),
recommending that the Commissioner’s final determination be affirmed. (ECF No. 17.) Judge Ruiz
ordered that any objections to the R. & R. must be submitted by June 26, 2017. (Id.) On June 26,
2017, Plaintiff filed a Response to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18), representing that
she would not file any objections to the R. & R.
By failing to file objections, Plaintiff has waived the right to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947
(6th Cir. 1981). After careful review of Judge Ruiz’s R. & R., and all other relevant documents in
the record, the court finds no clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note; Arn,
474 U.S. at 150 (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require the district court review of a
magistrate[] [judge’s] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither party objects to those findings.”).
Thus, the court adopts as its own Judge Ruiz’s R. & R. (ECF No. 17.) In the alternative, the
court finds that, even upon de novo review, Magistrate Judge Ruiz’s findings are well taken, and
adopts as its own his R. & R. for the reasons stated in the R. & R. The court hereby affirms the
Commissioner’s final decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

June 27, 2017

-2-