Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

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

ANGELINA S. MILLER, ) CASE NO. 5:24 CV 2128 Plaintiff, ) v. JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ) Magistrate Judge ) Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong. (Document #12.) On December 9, 2024, Plaintiff, Angelina S. Miller, filed her Complaint (Docket #1) challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her Application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Dowdell Armstrong. On September 10, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Commissioner’s decision denying Ms. Miller’s Application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income be affirmed.

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were to be filed by September 24, 2025. No objections were filed. Standard of Review for a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 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 to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court reviews the case de novo. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) reads as follows: 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 instructions. The text of Rule 72(b) addresses only the review of reports to which objections have been made; it does not indicate the appropriate standard of review for those reports to which no objections have been properly made. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules commented on a district court’s review of unopposed reports by magistrate judges. In regard to subsection (b) of Rule 72, the advisory committee stated: “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.” FED. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted). The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985): “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.”

-2-

Conclusion The Court has carefully reviewed the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Dowdell Armstrong and agrees with the findings set forth therein. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Dowdell Armstrong (Docket #12) is hereby ADOPTED. The Commissioner’s decision denying Ms. Miller’s Application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income is hereby AFFIRMED. This case is hereby TERMINATED. IT IS SO ORDERED. | | if DONALD C. NU EN United States District Judge paren. Octobyn 3 2025