James v. Commissioner of Social Security

N.D. Ohio

James v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedAugust 12, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-00003

StatusUnknown

This text of James v. Commissioner of Social Security (James v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James v. Commissioner of Social Security, (N.D. Ohio 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

PEARSON, J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

DAVENA E. JAMES, ) ) CASE NO. 1:24-CV-003 Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) SECURITY, ) ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ) ORDER Defendant. ) [Regarding ECF No. 11]

On July 25, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting that the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s applications for a Period of Disability, Disability Insurance Benefits, and Supplemental Security Income be affirmed. See ECF No. 11. The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which the parties have made an objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Parties must file any objections to a Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of service. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to object within this time waives a party’s right to appeal the district court’s judgment. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 145 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). Absent objections, a district court may adopt a magistrate judge’s report without review. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149. In the instant case, objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by August 8, 2024. None of the parties of have filed any objections. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 11. The Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff a Period of Disability, Disability Insurance Benefits, and Supplemental Security Income is affirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 12, 2024 /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Date Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PEARSON, J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

DAVENA E. JAMES, ) ) CASE NO. 1:24-CV-003 Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) SECURITY, ) ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ) ORDER Defendant. ) [Regarding ECF No. 11]

On July 25, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting that the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s applications for a Period of Disability, Disability Insurance Benefits, and Supplemental Security Income be affirmed. See ECF No. 11. The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which the parties have made an objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Parties must file any objections to a Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of service. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to object within this time waives a party’s right to appeal the district court’s judgment. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 145 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). Absent objections, a district court may adopt a magistrate judge’s report without review. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149. In the instant case, objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by August 8, 2024. None of the parties of have filed any objections. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 11. The Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff a Period of Disability, Disability Insurance Benefits, and Supplemental Security Income is affirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 12, 2024 /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Date Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

James v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-commissioner-of-social-security-ohnd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack