MALEY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 4:13CV1281. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20140709b96
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 08, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 08, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER JOHN R. ADAMS, District Judge. The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits. Plaintiff sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision, and this Court referred the case to the Magistrate Judge for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636 and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge submitted a report and recommendation reco
Summary: MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER JOHN R. ADAMS, District Judge. The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits. Plaintiff sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision, and this Court referred the case to the Magistrate Judge for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636 and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge submitted a report and recommendation recom..
More
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN R. ADAMS, District Judge.
The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits. Plaintiff sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision, and this Court referred the case to the Magistrate Judge for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636 and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge submitted a report and recommendation recommending that the Court reverse the decision of the ALJ and remand for further analysis under the treating physician's rule and to reconsider his assessment of Plaintiff's credibility. Doc. 13.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) provides that the parties may object to a report and recommendation within 14 days after service. The Commissioner responded to the R&R by stating that she has no objections to the R&R. Doc. 13. Thus, any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court's limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984); Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
Accordingly, the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby adopted. This matter is REVERSED and REMANDED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
