Starcher v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 17

Memorandum Opinion adopting the 16 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Parker. The decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff's request for Disability Insurance Benefits and Social Security Income is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. Judge Donald C. Nugent on 7/25/17. (G,CA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

DANIEL STARCHER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
Defendant
)
.

CASE NO. 5:16-cv-2222
JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THOMAS M. PARKER
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Thomas Parker. (Docket #16).On September 6, 2016, Plaintiff Daniel Starcher, filed his
Complaint (Docket #1) challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Pursuant
to Local Rule 72.2(b), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Parker.
On June 2, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation. The
Magistrate Judge found the Administrate Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision was not supported by
substantial evidence and that the final decision of the Commissioner be vacated and the case
remanded for further proceedings. No objections were filed.

Standard of Review for a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
The applicable district court standard of review for a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation depends upon whether objections were made to that report. When objections
are made to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court reviews the
case de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) provides this standard of review. It states, in pertinent part,
the following:
The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de
novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence,
of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which
specific written objection has been made in accordance with this
rule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
The text of Rule 72(b) addresses only the review of reports to which objections
have been made; it does not indicate the appropriate standard of review for those reports
to which no objections have been properly made. The Advisory Committee on Civil
Rules commented on a district court’s review of unopposed reports by magistrate judges.
In regard to subsection (b) of Rule 72, the advisory committee stated: “When no timely
objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s notes (citation omitted).
The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985): “It
does not appear that Congress intended to require 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.”

2

Conclusion
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees
with the findings set forth therein. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Parker (Docket #16) is ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner denying
Plaintiff’s request for Disability Insurance Benefits and Social Security Income is
VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_/s/Donald C. Nugent_______
DONALD C. NUGENT
United States District Judge
DATED: _July 25, 2017__

3