Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Manchook v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:18-cv-1593. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio Number: infdco20190701c89 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jun. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 28, 2019
Summary: OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 1] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . Plaintiff Margaret Manchook seeks judicial review of Defendant Social Security Commissioner's decision to deny her disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income applications. 1 On May 9, 2019, Magistrate Judge Thomas Parker issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court vacate the Commissioner's final decision and remand the case for further proceedings. 2 Any objections to Magist
More

OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 1]

Plaintiff Margaret Manchook seeks judicial review of Defendant Social Security Commissioner's decision to deny her disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income applications.1 On May 9, 2019, Magistrate Judge Thomas Parker issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court vacate the Commissioner's final decision and remand the case for further proceedings.2

Any objections to Magistrate Judge Parker's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") were due by May 23, 2019. Neither party objected.

The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review of the portions of an R&R to which the parties have objected.3 Absent objection, a district court may adopt the R&R without review.4

Because no party objected to the R&R, this Court may adopt the R&R without further review. Moreover, having conducted its own review of the record, the Court agrees with the conclusions in the R&R.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Parker's R&R, incorporating it fully herein by reference, VACATES the Commissioner's final decision, and REMANDS the case for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Doc. 1. Plaintiff and Defendant file merits briefs. Docs. 12, 16. Plaintiff replies to Defendant's brief. Doc. 17.
2. Doc. 18.
3. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
4. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985). Failure to timely object may waive a party's right to appeal the district court's order adopting the R&R. Id. at 155; United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
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