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.)

Download PDF
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

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?