Marlow v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 3:17-cv-147. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20180911428
Visitors: 1
Filed: Aug. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2018
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY WALTER H. RICE , District Judge . The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington (Doc. #11), to whom this case was originally referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b). Noting that no objections have been filed and that the time for filing such objections, if any, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), has expired, this Court hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. It is therefore ORDERED t
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY WALTER H. RICE , District Judge . The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington (Doc. #11), to whom this case was originally referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b). Noting that no objections have been filed and that the time for filing such objections, if any, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), has expired, this Court hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. It is therefore ORDERED th..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY
WALTER H. RICE, District Judge.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington (Doc. #11), to whom this case was originally referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Noting that no objections have been filed and that the time for filing such objections, if any, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), has expired, this Court hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations.
It is therefore ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendations filed on July 19, 2018 (Doc. #11) is ADOPTED in full;
2. The Commissioner's non-disability finding is VACATED;
3. No finding is made as to whether Plaintiff Jeffrey Marlow was under a "disability" within the meaning of the Social Security Act;
4. This matter is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration consistent with the Report and Recommendations and this Decision; and
5. The case is terminated on the docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
