Haithcock v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2012cv00429 - Document 35 (N.D. Ohio 2012)

Court Description: Memorandum, Opinion and Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and remanding this matter for reconsideration. Judge John R. Adams on 11/26/12. (K,C)

Download PDF
Haithcock v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMIE HAITHCOCK Plaintiff, -vsCOMMISSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:12CV429 JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER The Social Security Administration denied Haithcock’s application for child’s benefits and disability benefits. Haithcock sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision, and this Court referred the case to the Magistrate Judge for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636 and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). On October 5, 2012, the parties filed a joint proposed stipulation to remand. Doc. 26. On October 10, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted a report and recommendation recommending that the Court enter judgment remanding the case to the Commissioner on the terms set out in the joint stipulation. Doc. 27. On October 19, this Court referred the case back to the Magistrate Judge to provide specifics as to why there was good cause for remand. Doc. 28. On November 7, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a second R&R, again recommending that the case be remanded for reconsideration of the decision denying Haithcock’s child’s benefits and disability insurance benefits claims. Doc. 33. This second R&R satisfied this Court’s mandate to provide a specific cause for remand. On November 21, 2012, the Commissioner filed a response to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, stating that he would not object to the recommendation. Doc. 34. Haithcock did not file any objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) provides that the parties may object to a report and recommendation within 14 days after service. Plaintiff did not filed objections and the Commissioner specifically Dockets.Justia.com stated that he did not object. Thus, any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby adopted. This matter is REMANDED for reconsideration. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 26, 2012 /s/ John R. Adams_______________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.