Meyer v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Shanna Eileen Marie Meyer, Case No. 3:20-cv-1763

Plaintiff

v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

Before me is the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of Magistrate Judge Darrell A. Clay filed on November 29, 2021. (Doc. No. 16). Under the relevant statute: Within [fourteen (14)] days after being served a copy of these proposed Findings and Recommendation, any party who wishes to object must file and serve written objections or further appeal is waived.

United States v. Campbell, 261 F.3d 628, 631-32 (6th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (effective Dec. 1, 2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In this case, the fourteen-day window for objections has elapsed, and no objections have been filed. Following review of Judge Clay’s R & R, I adopt it in its entirety as the Order of the Court. I agree with Judge Clay’s conclusions that the ALJ sufficiently explained why Plaintiff’s headache disorder did not meet a listed impairment and that the ALJ properly accounted for Plaintiff’s migraine-related limitations when determining Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). The ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed, and this case is dismissed. So Ordered. s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge