Sheward v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

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

ANGELA R. SHEWARD, ) Case No. 1:24—CV-2240 ) Plaintiff, ) ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT v. ) ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) Magistrate Judge James E. Grimes Jr. SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge James E. Grimes Jr. (ECF #15). On January 10, 2024, the Commissioner of Social Security denied Plaintiff, Angela R. Sheward’s Application for Disability Insurance Benefits, Disabled Widow’s Benefits, and Supplemental Security Income. (ECF #1-1, Notice of Decision — Unfavorable, p.1 [PageID 4]). On December 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint challenging the Commissioner’s denial. (ECF #1). On July 15, 2025, Magistrate Judge E. Grimes Jr. recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. (ECF #15, Report and Recommendation). Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation, (ECF #16), on July 29, 2025, and the Commissioner of Social Security Responded on August 11, 2025. (ECF #17, Response to Plaintiff's Objections).

Standard of Review for a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation The applicable district court standard of review for 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) provides that: 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 standard of review for a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is distinct from the standard of review for the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision regarding benefits. Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision, as reflected in the decisions of the ALJ, is limited to whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Smith v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 893 F.2d 106, 108 (6th Cir. 1989). “Substantial evidence exists when a reasonable mind could accept the evidence as adequate to support the challenged conclusion, even if that evidence could support a decision the other way.” Casey v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

Conclusion The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation de novo and agrees with the findings set forth therein. The Report and Recommendation accurately reflects a thorough analysis of the record. In doing so, Magistrate Judge Grimes properly found that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision to deny the requested benefits. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Grimes that the ALJ properly analyzed the positive and abnormal findings of each doctor, including Dr. Dubey, and appropriately considered the consistency or

lack thereof between the medical opinions. In addition, Magistrate Judge Grimes properly notes that the ALJ correctly attributed a suitable weight to each doctor’s opinion and gave sufficient evidence when discounting a particular doctor. Accordingly, none of Plaintiff’s objections are well taken. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge E. Grimes Jr., (ECF #15), is hereby ADOPTED. The Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s Application for Disability Insurance Benefits, Disabled Widow’s Benefits, and Supplemental Security Income is hereby AFFIRMED. The case is hereby TERMINATED. SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

DATED: / ive 16,4 15