Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Shawn Jones, Case No. 1:24cv1353

Plaintiff, JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER -vs- Magistrate Judge Reuben J. Sheperd

Commissioner of Social Security, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant.

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Reuben J. Sheperd. (Doc. No. 9), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be vacated and remanded. The Commissioner filed a Response indicating that he would not be filing Objections. (Doc. No. 10.) For the following reasons, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further consideration consistent with the Report & Recommendation. I. Background On August 8, 2024, Plaintiff Shawn Jones filed a Complaint (Doc. No. 1) challenging the final decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423, and 1381 et seq. (“Act”). Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Sheperd. On February 26, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, in which he found that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s Step Five determination. (Doc. No. 9.) The Magistrate Judge, therefore, recommended that the decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s application for benefits be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Report & Recommendation. (Id.) Objections to the Report and Recommendation were to be filed within 14 days of service, i.e., by no later than March 12, 2025. On that date, the

Commissioner filed a Response indicating that he would not be filing Objections. (Doc. No. 10.) II. Standard of Review The applicable standard of review of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation depends upon whether objections were made to that report. When objections are made, the district court reviews the case de novo. Specifically, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) states in pertinent part: The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instruction.

Although the standard of review when no objections are made is not expressly addressed in Rule 72, the Advisory Committee Notes to that Rule provide that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes. Moreover, in Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the United States Supreme Court explained that “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”

2 III. Analysis and Conclusion Here, as stated above, no objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Sheperd that the decision of the Commissioner be vacated and the case remanded. This Court has nonetheless carefully and thoroughly reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with the findings set forth therein. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Sheperd is, therefore, ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s application

for DIB is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Report & Recommendation. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Pamela A. Barker_ Date: March 13, 2025 PAMELA A. BARKER U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE