Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

CECIL EX REL. T.C. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 1:13-cv-00162. (2014)

Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio Number: infdco20140423c44 Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER S. ARTHUR SPIEGEL, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the February 19, 2014 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman (doc. 21). Proper notice was provided to the parties under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), including the advice that they would waive further appeal if they failed to file an objection to said Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 , 155 (1985); United States v. W
More

ORDER

S. ARTHUR SPIEGEL, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the February 19, 2014 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman (doc. 21). Proper notice was provided to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), including the advice that they would waive further appeal if they failed to file an objection to said Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff sought (doc. 22) and was granted (doc. 23) an initial 14-day extension of time by which to file her objections. She then sought a second 14-day extension in her pleading captioned "Plaintiff's Final Motion to Extend Time for Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation" (doc. 24). On March 27, 2014, we granted her motion, allowing her until April 8, 2014 to file her objections (doc. 25). To date, no objections have been filed.

Having reviewed this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), we conclude that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is thorough, well-reasoned and correct, and thus the Court ACCEPTS, ADOPTS and AFFIRMS it in all respects. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner to deny Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") on behalf of her grandson, T.C., which we find to be supported by substantial evidence such that remand for further consideration is not required, is AFFIRMED and the Court ORDERS that this case be closed on the docket.

SO ORDERED.

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