Ulrich v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

Memorandum of Opinion and Order: This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Darrell A. Clay (Doc. 22 ), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be REVERSED and this matter REMANDED for further proceedings. The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED to defendant for further proceedings. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 8/1/22. (LC,S)

Case: 5:21-cv-00383-PAG Doc #: 23 Filed: 08/01/22 1 of 2. PageID #: 1317

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Kristie G. Ulrich,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
Commission of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:21 CV 383
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Darrell A. Clay (Doc. 22), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be
REVERSED and this matter REMANDED for further proceedings. No objections have been
filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED, the decision
of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED to defendant for further
proceedings.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
1

Case: 5:21-cv-00383-PAG Doc #: 23 Filed: 08/01/22 2 of 2. PageID #: 1318

When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the
district court reviews the case de novo. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides in
pertinent part:
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.
As stated in the Advisory Committee Notes, “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.” In Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the Court held, “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.”
DECISION
This Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error,
hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. In accordance with that
recommendation, the Court hereby REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner and
REMANDS this matter for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and
Recommendation, which is incorporated herein by reference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/1/22

/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge
Chief Judge
2