Osborne v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING and AFFIRMING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 in that Plaintiffs Statement of Errors is hereby OVERRULED, and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 8/23/18. (sem)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

MIRANDA S. OSBORNE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-938
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
Magistrate Judge Jolson

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

ORDER
This case is before the Court to consider the Report and Recommendation issued by the
Magistrate Judge on July 24, 2018. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s
Statement of Errors be overruled and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security be
affirmed. (See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 14). This matter is now before the Court on
Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 15). The
Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Plaintiff raises two main objections to the ALJ and Magistrate Judge’s findings: 1) the
ALJ failed to properly weigh the medical opinion evidence; and 2) the ALJ failed to properly
evaluate Ms. Osborne’s testimony. However, these objections present, once again, the issued
presented to and carefully considered by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and
Recommendation.
Plaintiff has not presented any new evidence or argument other than what was previously
presented in her Statement of Errors. Plaintiff merely disagrees with the ALJ and Magistrate

Judge’s conclusions. Specifically with respect to weighing the medical evidence, the Magistrate
Judge noted, and the Court agrees, that “it is the job of the ALJ, not Plaintiff, to determine how
much value and weight to assign certain medical opinions.” (Doc. 14, Report and
Recommendation at 18). Further, with respect to Ms. Osborne’s testimony, Plaintiff argues that
the ALJ’s evaluation is not supported by substantial evidence. The Court disagrees. The
evidence is set forth in detail in the ALJ’s decision and the Report and Recommendation.
Further, the Sixth Circuit has held that courts must accord great deference to an ALJ’s
‘credibility’ assessment “because of the ALJ’s unique opportunity to observe the claimant and
judge [his] subjective complaints.” Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 462, 773 (6th Cir. 2001).
The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s objections, but finds that the decision of
the ALJ was supported by substantial evidence as acknowledged in detail in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the well-reasoned
Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit.
Based on the aforementioned and the detailed Report and Recommendation, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s objections have been thoroughly considered and are hereby OVERRULED.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation, Document 14, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors is hereby OVERRULED, and the decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security is AFFIRMED.

-2-

The Clerk shall remove Documents 14 and 15 from the Court’s pending motions list, and
enter final judgment in favor of Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ George C. Smith
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-3-