Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jordan v. Berryhill, 1:17CV0646. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio Number: infdco20180611934 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 08, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 08, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER BENITA Y. PEARSON , District Judge . An Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") denied Plaintiff Kimberly Jordan's application for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") after a hearing in the above-captioned case. That decision became the final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security when the Appeals Council denied the request to review the ALJ's decision. The claimant sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision, and the Court referred the ca
More

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

An Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") denied Plaintiff Kimberly Jordan's application for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") after a hearing in the above-captioned case. That decision became the final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security when the Appeals Council denied the request to review the ALJ's decision. The claimant sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision, and the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). On May 24, 2018, the magistrate judge submitted a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) recommending that the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision as supported by substantial evidence and made pursuant to proper legal standards. Specifically, the magistrate judge found the ALJ's decision does not violate the treating physician rule and his residual functional capacity ("RFC") assessment of Plaintiff's right-hand abilities is supported by substantial evidence. ECF No. 14 at PageID #: 340, 341.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service. Objections to the magistrate judge's Report were, therefore, due on June 7, 2018. Neither party has filed objections, evidencing satisfaction with the magistrate judge's recommendations. 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), aff'd, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 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. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer