Collins v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 38

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. Plaintiffs motion for my SSDI case to move forward (Doc. 37 ) be DENIED. 2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Ord er adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. 3. If the Report and Recommendation is adopted, plaintiff should be advised that if she wishes to obtain revi ew of this Courts Order, she must pursue an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and not file any further post-judgment motions or documents with this Court. Objections to R&R due by 1/10/2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 12/23/2022. (bjc)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 38 Filed: 12/27/22 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 178

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

Case No. 1:18-cv-268
Black, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.

REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion “for my SSDI case to move
forward.” (Doc. 37). This is the third such motion filed by plaintiff to reopen her case. (See
Docs. 31, 32). The history of this case and the reasons for recommending the denial of plaintiff’s
motions to reopen are set forth in the undersigned’s Reports and Recommendation of October
19, 2021. (Doc. 33). For these same reasons, plaintiff’s instant motion “for my SSDI case to
move forward” should be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s motion “for my SSDI case to move forward” (Doc. 37) be DENIED.
2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an
appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith
and therefore deny plaintiff 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).
3. If the Report and Recommendation is adopted, plaintiff should be advised that if she
wishes to obtain review of this Court’s Order, she must pursue an appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and not file any further post-judgment motions or

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 38 Filed: 12/27/22 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 179

documents with this Court.

12/23/2022
Date:____________

_________________________
Karen L. Litkovitz
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

2

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 38 Filed: 12/27/22 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 180

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
MACHELLE COLLINS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:18-cv-268
Black, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after
being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely
motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the
R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the
objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after
being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this
procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States
v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

3