Rodarmer v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:17-cv-474. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20180104e06
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 03, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving Doc. 1] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . On March 7, 2017, Plaintiff Harold L. Rodarmer filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's decision to deny his applications for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits. 1 The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg. On December 18, 2017, Magistrate Judge Greenberg issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that t
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving Doc. 1] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . On March 7, 2017, Plaintiff Harold L. Rodarmer filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's decision to deny his applications for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits. 1 The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg. On December 18, 2017, Magistrate Judge Greenberg issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that th..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 1]
JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.
On March 7, 2017, Plaintiff Harold L. Rodarmer filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's decision to deny his applications for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits.1 The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg.
On December 18, 2017, Magistrate Judge Greenberg issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that this Court affirm the Commissioner's final decision.2 Objections to that R&R were due by January 1, 2018. Plaintiff Rodarmer filed no objections.
The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those portions of an R&R to which the parties have made an objection.3 Failure to timely object waives a party's right to appeal the Magistrate Judge's R&R.4 Where a party does not object to the R&R, a district court may adopt it without review.5
Accordingly, in light of Plaintiff Rodarmer's decision not to object to the R&R in this case, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Greenberg's R&R, incorporates it as if fully restated herein, and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's final decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Doc. 1.
2. Doc. 14.
3. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
4. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 145 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
5. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149-50.
Source: Leagle
