Clonch v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

ORDER adopting 19 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 9/9/15. (jk)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Amanda J. Clonch, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:14-cv-2327 Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Michael H. Watson Defendant. ORDER On August 17, 2015, Magistrate Judge King, to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and General Order No. 14-01, filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), ECF No. 19, concerning the disposition of Amanda J. Clonch's ("Plaintiff") Complaint, ECF No. 2, in this Social Security case. The R&R recommended reversing the decision of the Social Security Administration and remanding the case to the Commissioner and the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") for further consideration of the evidence, as the ALJ did not consider Plaintiff's diagnosis of obesity in light of Social Security Ruling 02-01 p, 2002 SSR Lexis 1 (Sept. 12, 2002). R&R 8-9, ECF No. 19. Magistrate Judge King notified the parties of their right to file objections to the R&R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Id. at 11. Magistrate Judge King specifically advised the parties that the failure to object to the R&R within fourteen days would result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge. Id. at 11-12. The deadline for filing such objections has passed, and no objections were filed. Having received no objections, the R&R, ECF No. 19, is ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner and ALJ. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT pursuant to Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). IT IS SO ORDERED. IICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case No. 2:14-cv-2327 Page 2 of 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?