DODSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 1:11-CV-332. (2012)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20120614975
Visitors: 17
Filed: Jun. 13, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 13, 2012
Summary: ORDER S. ARTHUR SPIEGEL, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. 23), to which no objections were filed. Proper Notice was given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. Walters , 638 F.2d 947 (6 th Cir. 1981). As of the date of this Order, no objec
Summary: ORDER S. ARTHUR SPIEGEL, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. 23), to which no objections were filed. Proper Notice was given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. Walters , 638 F.2d 947 (6 th Cir. 1981). As of the date of this Order, no object..
More
ORDER
S. ARTHUR SPIEGEL, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. 23), to which no objections were filed.
Proper Notice was given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed.
Having reviewed this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation thorough, well-reasoned, and correct.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. 23) in all respects and REVERSES the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's applications for benefits. The Court thus REMANDS the case under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the ALJ to, inter alia, properly evaluate the special education services and accommodations S.L.S. has received throughout his school years as well as his consistently significant delays in reading and writing on his ability to function in the relevant domains. Finally, the Court ORDERS that this case be closed.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
