Filed: Mar. 29, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 29, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION DONALD C. NUGENT , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert (ECF #20). On November 17, 2016, Petitioner Kathleen Hardman filed her Complaint (ECF #1) challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits. Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Limbert. On March 5, 2018, the Magistrate J
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION DONALD C. NUGENT , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert (ECF #20). On November 17, 2016, Petitioner Kathleen Hardman filed her Complaint (ECF #1) challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits. Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Limbert. On March 5, 2018, the Magistrate Ju..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DONALD C. NUGENT, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert (ECF #20). On November 17, 2016, Petitioner Kathleen Hardman filed her Complaint (ECF #1) challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits. Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Limbert.
On March 5, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge found the Commissioner's decision denying Disability Insurance Benefits to be supported by substantial evidence and recommends that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were to be filed within 14 days of service. On March 19, 2018, Petitioner filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF #21).
Standard of Review for a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
The applicable standard of review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation depends upon whether objections were made to that report. When objections are made to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court reviews the case de novo. FED R. CIV. P. 72(b) states:
The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions
Accordingly, this Court will review the Report and Recommendation to which timely objections have been filed, de novo. See Dacas Nursing Support Sys., Inc. v. NLRB, 7 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The Court has reviewed de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with the findings set forth therein. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation fully and accurately addresses all of the Petitioner's claims and this Court finds the Petitioner's objections are unwarranted. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Petitioner's request that the case be reversed and remanded (ECF #1) is DENIED. The Social Security Administration's final decision denying Petitioner's applications for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
