Willis v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

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

MICHELLE ELIZABETH WILLIS, ) Case No. 5:24-CV—01503 Plaintiff, JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT v. Magistrate Judge Amanda M. Knapp COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant. )

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Amanda M. Knapp. (ECF #11). On October 3, 2023, the Commissioner of Social Security denied Plaintiff, Michelle Elizabeth Willis’ Application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. (ECF #1, Complaint, p.1 §§ 3-4 [PageID 1)). Plaintiff filed a Complaint challenging the Commissioner’s denial on September 4, 2024. (ECF #1). On July 23, 2025, Magistrate Judge Knapp recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. (ECF #11, Report and Recommendation). Objections to the Report and Recommendation were to be filed by August 12, 2025. No objections were filed.

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 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 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 United States 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.”

Conclusion The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Knapp’s Report and Recommendation and agrees with the findings set forth therein.

The Court finds that Magistrate Judge Knapp conducted a comprehensive analysis of the record and correctly found that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge properly upheld the ALJ’s determination that Ms. Willis failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claim that her headaches medically equaled a listed impairment. (ECF #11, Report and Recommendation, p.27 [PagelD 816]). Further, the ALJ appropriately evaluated the opinions of Drs. Groneck, Arnold, and Dib, and gave sufficient reasons when finding a particular opinion less persuasive. (/d. at p.30-41 [PagelD 819-30)]). Finally, the ALJ properly applied Social Security Regulation 16-3p when evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective complaints about pain and mental dysfunction and discounting them due to their intermittent nature. (/d. p.44 [PageID 833]). Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Knapp, (ECF #11), is hereby ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff, Michelle Elizabeth Willis’ Application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income is hereby AFFIRMED. This case is hereby TERMINATED. ITIS SO ORDERED.

DONALD tlh | United States District Judge

DATED: A al 4 | 0h