Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 14

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 13 Stipulation: Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Motion be GRANTED and that this case be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings and a new decision.Objections to R&R due within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 11/6/2012. (er1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
HOPE R. LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:12-cv-00479
Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation and Motion to Remand to
the Commissioner. (ECF No. 13.) In the Stipulation, the parties request a remand to the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Under 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court may, upon motion consideration of the pleadings and the transcript,
affirm, modify, or reverse the Commissioner’s decision “with or without remanding the cause for
a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Here, the parties stipulate that remand is necessary to allow the Administrative Law
Judge to offer Plaintiff a new opportunity for a hearing, evaluate the opinion and treatment notes
of Plaintiff’s treating physician, and explain the reasons for weight assigned to the treating
physician’s opinion and re-evaluate Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity. (ECF No. 13, at 1.)
Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Motion be
GRANTED and that this case be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings and a
new decision.
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and
Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in
question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and
waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex
Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate
judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district
court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that
defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed,
appellate
review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994
(6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to specify the
issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation omitted)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: November 6, 2012

/s/ Elizabeth P. Deavers
Elizabeth P. Deavers
United States Magistrate Judge

2