Dittoe v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 15 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's 16 Objection,ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's 15 Report and Recommendation, andAFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision. Signed by Judge Sarah D. Morrison on 2/5/2024. (merc)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
TODD D.,
Plaintiff,

:

v.

Case No. 2:23-cv-297
Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain

COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,

:

Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review of a final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his
application for Social Security period of disability and disability insurance benefits.
(ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed his Statement of Errors on May 15, 2023. (ECF No. 10.)
The Commissioner filed a Memorandum in Opposition (ECF No. 12) and Plaintiff
replied (ECF No. 13). On January 8, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and Recommendation, recommending that the Court overrule Plaintiff’s Statement
of Errors and affirm the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff
timely filed his Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
(ECF No. 16.)
If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation,
the Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made
by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court’s review “is limited to
determining whether the Commissioner’s decision ‘is supported by substantial
evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards.’” Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 512 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486
F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The findings of the
Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence,
shall be conclusive . . . .”).
The Court has carefully reviewed the record and concludes that the decision
of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant
to proper legal standards. The issues raised in Plaintiff’s Objection were considered
and correctly addressed by the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 16),
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15), and
AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision. The Clerk is DIRECTED to
TERMINATE this case from the docket records of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sarah D. Morrison
SARAH D. MORRISON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2