Boxler v. Commissioner of Social Security
Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 6/23/17. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, adopts in whole the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and affirms the Commissioner's denial of benefits. (Related Docs. 1 and 17 ) (D,MA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
-----------------------------------------------------STEPHANIE L. BOXLER,
CASE NO. 5:16-CV-2154
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 1]
-----------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
On December 12, 2012, Plaintiff Stephanie L. Boxler applied for Disability Insurance
Benefits and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.1
After her application was denied, Boxler requested that an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
evaluate her application.2
On March 23, 2015, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff Boxler was not disabled within the
meanings of the Social Security Act.3 The Appeals Council denied Boxler’s request for review.4
On August 29, 2016, Plaintiff Boxler filed this complaint. With her complaint, Boxler
alleges that she was wrongly denied disability insurance benefits.5
Consistent with Local Rule 72.2, the Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge
Thomas M. Parker. On June 1, 2017, Magistrate Judge Parker issued a Report and
Doc. 10 at 268-76; see 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423 et seq.
Id. at 12-15.
Id. at 16-37.
Id. at 6-10.
Case No. 5:16-CV-2154
Recommendation, finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s determination and
recommending that this Court affirm the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits.6
Specifically, Magistrate Judge Parker rejected Boxler’s argument that the ALJ should
have considered Boxler’s diagnosis of bradyphrenia, a condition that causes mental slowness or
fatigability of initiative.7 Judge Parker found no evidence that Boxler had a bradyphrenia
diagnosis, and Boxler failed to identify any work-impairing limitations of a bradyphrenia
diagnosis.8 On June 12, 2017, Boxler filed notice that she would not object to Magistrate Judge
Parker’s report and recommendation.9
The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of
those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which the parties have made an objection.10
Plaintiff Boxler declined to file any objections in this case.
Absent objection, a district court may adopt the magistrate judge’s report without
review.11 Moreover, having conducted its own review of the parties’ briefs in this case, the Court
agrees with the conclusions of Magistrate Judge Parker.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS in whole Magistrate Judge Parker’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law and incorporates them fully herein by reference. The Court thus
AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s denial of benefits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 23, 2017
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Id. at 9-11.
Id. at 10-11.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
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?