Dallas B. v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
• Decided: December 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00019
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

DALLAS B.,

Plaintiff, :

Case No. 2:25-cv-19 v. Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison

Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Litkovitz COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, :

Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for Social Security period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed her Statement of Errors on May 30, 2025. (ECF No. 12.) The Commissioner filed a Memorandum in Opposition (ECF No. 13) to which Plaintiff replied (ECF No. 14). On November 7, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court overrule Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors and affirm the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff timely filed her Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 16.) If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation, the Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court’s review “is limited to

determining whether the Commissioner’s decision ‘is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards.’” Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 512 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . .”). The Court has carefully reviewed the record and concludes that the decision

of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards. The issues raised in Plaintiff’s Objection were considered and correctly addressed by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 16), ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15), and AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Sarah D. Morrison SARAH D. MORRISON, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT