THOMPSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 2:14-cv-660. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20150921c48
Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER PETER C. ECONOMUS , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 19.) The Magistrate Judge recommended, that the Court remand this action to the Commissioner. ( Id. ) Plaintiff Karen M. Thompson filed this action seeking review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security inc
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER PETER C. ECONOMUS , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 19.) The Magistrate Judge recommended, that the Court remand this action to the Commissioner. ( Id. ) Plaintiff Karen M. Thompson filed this action seeking review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security inco..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PETER C. ECONOMUS, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 19.) The Magistrate Judge recommended, that the Court remand this action to the Commissioner. (Id.)
Plaintiff Karen M. Thompson filed this action seeking review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The Magistrate Judge found that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") failed to base his decision on substantial evidence. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff's case required a more in depth analysis of Plaintiff's depression and the functional limitations caused by depression symptoms.
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge specifically advised the parties that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days results in a "waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court." (Report & Recommendation, ECF No. 14 at 22.) The time period for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation has expired. No party has objected to the Report and Recommendation.
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Noting that no objections have been filed and that the time for filing such objections has expired, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Statement of Errors is SUSTAINED, and this action is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for further consideration of plaintiffs medical impairments.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle