DAVIS-LILLY v. COLVIN, 1:13CV1983. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20140604e74
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jun. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 03, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER JOHN R. ADAMS, District Judge. The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's application for Period of Disability, Disability Insurance Benefits, and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 USC 416(i), 423, 1381 et seq. 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.
Summary: MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER JOHN R. ADAMS, District Judge. The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's application for Period of Disability, Disability Insurance Benefits, and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 USC 416(i), 423, 1381 et seq. 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. ..
More
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN R. ADAMS, District Judge.
The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's application for Period of Disability, Disability Insurance Benefits, and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 USC §§416(i), 423, 1381 et seq. 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 proceedings. Doc. 16.
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. 17. 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
