HICKEY v. COLVIN, 3:14-cv-264. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20150910e00
Visitors: 12
Filed: Sep. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 09, 2015
Summary: ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 14) TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 13); ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 13) IN THEIR ENTIRETY; AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER'S NON-DISABILITY DETERMINATION; AND TERMINATING THIS CASE THOMAS M. ROSE , District Judge . This is an action under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income. On July 29, 2015, Chief Ma
Summary: ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 14) TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 13); ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 13) IN THEIR ENTIRETY; AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER'S NON-DISABILITY DETERMINATION; AND TERMINATING THIS CASE THOMAS M. ROSE , District Judge . This is an action under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income. On July 29, 2015, Chief Mag..
More
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 14) TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 13); ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 13) IN THEIR ENTIRETY; AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER'S NON-DISABILITY DETERMINATION; AND TERMINATING THIS CASE
THOMAS M. ROSE, District Judge.
This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income. On July 29, 2015, Chief Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington entered a Report and Recommendations (Doc. 13), which recommended that this Court affirm the Commissioner's non-disability finding. On August 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. 14) to the Report and Recommendations. On August 20, 2015, the Commissioner filed a Response (Doc. 15) to Plaintiff's Objections. This matter is therefore ripe for this Court's review.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 14) to the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 13) are not well taken and they are hereby OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 13) in their entirety, and therefore AFFIRMS the Commissioner's non-disability determination. The Clerk is ORDERED to terminate this case on the docket of this Court.
DONE and ORDERED
Source: Leagle
