Pickett v. Commissioner of Social Security, 3:18 CV 1046. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20190826a30
Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JACK ZOUHARY , District Judge . Plaintiff Bernadette Reyes Pickett applied for Social Security disability benefits in 2014 (Doc. 9 at 462). After denials at all stages of the administrative process ( id. at 8, 50, 317, 324), she filed a Complaint in this Court against Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (Doc. 1). The Complaint seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's determination that Pickett is not entitled to benefits ( id. at 2). The
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JACK ZOUHARY , District Judge . Plaintiff Bernadette Reyes Pickett applied for Social Security disability benefits in 2014 (Doc. 9 at 462). After denials at all stages of the administrative process ( id. at 8, 50, 317, 324), she filed a Complaint in this Court against Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (Doc. 1). The Complaint seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's determination that Pickett is not entitled to benefits ( id. at 2). The c..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JACK ZOUHARY, District Judge.
Plaintiff Bernadette Reyes Pickett applied for Social Security disability benefits in 2014 (Doc. 9 at 462). After denials at all stages of the administrative process (id. at 8, 50, 317, 324), she filed a Complaint in this Court against Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (Doc. 1). The Complaint seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's determination that Pickett is not entitled to benefits (id. at 2).
The case was automatically referred to Magistrate Judge James Knepp under Local Civil Rule 72.2(b)(1) (Non-Doc. Entry 5/7/2018). Pickett later requested a remand based on new evidence — specifically, a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (Doc. 13 at 15, 17). The Commissioner opposed (Doc. 16); Pickett replied (Doc. 18). Judge Knepp then issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), which concludes remand is appropriate under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. 19 at 19).
The R&R states that objections to the R&R are due fourteen days after the date of its service (id.). The deadline passed, and no objections have been filed. Therefore, having reviewed the R&R, this Court adopts it in its entirety. See Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981). The Motion for Remand (Doc. 13) is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
