Collins v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 36

DECISION AND ENTRY adopting the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 33 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 9/14/2022. (rrs)

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/14/22 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 169

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
MACHELLE C.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:18-cv-268
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 33)
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United
States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate
Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on October 19, 2021, submitted a
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33). Plaintiff filed on October 21, 2021. (Doc. 34).
Plaintiff also filed a Notice, which may be considered a supplement to her objections, on
November 9, 2021. (Doc. 35).
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has
reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all
the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing and careful review of
Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33)
should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety.

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/14/22 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 170

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying
Plaintiff’s motions to reopen case (Docs. 31, 32). The motions were construed as
motions to alter or amend the judgment remanding this case to the Commissioner in
accordance with the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 24). This is the second
time Plaintiff has sought to amend the judgment. (See Doc. 25).
Construing the objections liberally, Plaintiff argues that: (1) the Court should not
have remanded her case because of Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the
Commissioner’s motion for remand (Doc. 19) or the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 21) recommending remand should have been be excused because
she is proceeding pro se; and (2) the Court should consider her case because she is
eligible for Social Security Disability Insurance. (Docs. 34, 35). The Court has already
considered these same arguments when adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation over Plaintiff’s objections. (See Docs. 27, 28, 29). 1 Thus, Plaintiff’s
objections are not well-taken and overruled.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:
1.

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33) is hereby ADOPTED;

2.

Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 34, 35) are OVERRULED;

3.

Plaintiff’s motions to reopen case (Docs. 31, 32) are DENIED; and,

4.

The Court certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), an appeal of this
Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore Plaintiff is denied

1

Even with Plaintiff’s pro se status, the objections reiterate arguments previously presented (see
Docs. 25, 26, 28, 31, 32), thus are “not sufficient to alert the court to the alleged errors on the
part of the magistrate judge.” Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004); see
also Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).

2

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/14/22 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 171

leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to
proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v.
Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v.
United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 1997).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:

9/14/2022

s/Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

3