HARRISON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 1:11CV00117. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20120117b30
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jan. 17, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER BENITA Y. PEARSON, District Judge. The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff Raymond Harrison's application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income Benefits in the above captioned case. Tr. 113-117. The claimant sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision, and the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke for preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636 and Local Rul
Summary: MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER BENITA Y. PEARSON, District Judge. The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff Raymond Harrison's application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income Benefits in the above captioned case. Tr. 113-117. The claimant sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision, and the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke for preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636 and Local Rule..
More
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
BENITA Y. PEARSON, District Judge.
The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff Raymond Harrison's application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income Benefits in the above captioned case. Tr. 113-117. The claimant sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision, and the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke for preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rules 72.2(b)(1). The magistrate judge submitted a report (ECF No. 18) recommending that the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that the parties may object to a Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days after service. No objections have been filed within the 14-day period. Any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and an 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); U.S. v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is hereby adopted. The Commissioner's decision is affirmed. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
