Freeman v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:17-cv-764. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20180928918
Visitors: 26
Filed: Sep. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. , Chief District Judge . On May 7, 2018 a Report and Recommendation was issued by the Magistrate Judge affirming the decision to deny benefits issued by the Social Security Administration. Thereafter, a timely objection was filed by the plaintiff Pamela Arvin Blocker. Under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(b)(3), this court "must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." The undersigned has reviewed th
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. , Chief District Judge . On May 7, 2018 a Report and Recommendation was issued by the Magistrate Judge affirming the decision to deny benefits issued by the Social Security Administration. Thereafter, a timely objection was filed by the plaintiff Pamela Arvin Blocker. Under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(b)(3), this court "must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." The undersigned has reviewed the..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR., Chief District Judge.
On May 7, 2018 a Report and Recommendation was issued by the Magistrate Judge affirming the decision to deny benefits issued by the Social Security Administration. Thereafter, a timely objection was filed by the plaintiff Pamela Arvin Blocker.
Under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(b)(3), this court "must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." The undersigned has reviewed the record in this case, the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge, and the objections filed by the plaintiff.
Upon review, this Court finds, as did the Magistrate Judge, that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge for the Social Security Administration was supported by substantial evidence and was not otherwise contrary to law, all of which require this court to affirm the denial of benefits. Blakely v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 518 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009).
IT IS SO ORDERED that the decision denying benefits is AFFIRMED and this case is dismissed.
Source: Leagle
