Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security

N.D. Ohio

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Ohio·Decided November 2, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-00261·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Tiffany Nichole Jones, ) CASE NO. 1:23 CV 261 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN ) Vs. ) ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) Memorandum of Opinion and Order ) Defendant. ) INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker (Doc. 14) recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. No objections have been filed. The Report and Recommendation is hereby ACCEPTED and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. STANDARD OF REVIEW When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court reviews the case de novo. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides in pertinent part: 1 The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made in accordance with this tule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. As stated in the Advisory Committee Notes, “When 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.” In Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the Court held, “It 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.” DECISION This Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error, hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. In accordance with that recommendation, judgment is entered in favor of the Commissioner for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge and the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN Dated: 11/2/23 United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Tiffany Nichole Jones, ) CASE NO. 1:23 CV 261 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN ) Vs. ) ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) Memorandum of Opinion and Order ) Defendant. ) INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker (Doc. 14) recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. No objections have been filed. The Report and Recommendation is hereby ACCEPTED and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. STANDARD OF REVIEW When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court reviews the case de novo. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides in pertinent part: 1 The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made in accordance with this tule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. As stated in the Advisory Committee Notes, “When 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.” In Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the Court held, “It 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.” DECISION This Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error, hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. In accordance with that recommendation, judgment is entered in favor of the Commissioner for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge and the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN Dated: 11/2/23 United States District Judge

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security, (N.D. Ohio 2023).

Pincite

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security (Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related