Shepherd v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 24

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING THE COMMISSIONER'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. # 22 ) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE COMMISSIONERSMOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT; ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 21 ) IN ITS ENTIRETY AND OVERRULING THE COMMISSIONER'SMOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT (Doc. 19 ). Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 08/15/11. (pb1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
CHARLES D. SHEPHERD,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:10-cv-110

vs.

Judge Thomas M. Rose

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING THE COMMISSIONER’S
OBJECTIONS (Doc. #22) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE COMMISSIONER’S
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT; ADOPTING THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc.
#21) IN ITS ENTIRETY AND OVERRULING THE COMMISSIONER’S
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT (Doc. #19)
______________________________________________________________________________
Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) has moved to alter or
amend this Court’s judgment remanding this case to the Social Security Administration for
further proceedings. (Doc. #19.) On July 7, 2011, Magistrate Judge Ovington entered a Report
and Recommendations recommending that the Commissioner’s Motion To Alter or Amend be
denied. (Doc. #21.) The Commissioner has objected to this Report and Recommendations (doc.
#22) and Plaintiff Charles Shepherd (“Shepherd”) has responded to the Commissioner’s
Objection (doc. #23). The Commissioner’s Objection are, thus, ripe for decision.
As required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b), the
District Judge has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Based upon the reasoning

1

and citations of authority set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations (doc.
#21) and in the Commissioner’s Objections (doc. #22) and Shepherd’s Response, as well as upon
a thorough de novo review of this Court’s file, including the Administrative Transcript, and a
thorough review of the applicable law, this Court adopts the aforesaid Report and
Recommendations in its entirety and, in so doing, overrules the Commissioner’s Motion To Alter
or Amend Judgment. Finally, the above captioned case remains terminated on the docket records
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division at
Dayton.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Fifteenth Day of August, 2011.
.

s/Thomas M. Rose
_____________________________________
JUDGE THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

2