Norris v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2013cv01737 - Document 30 (N.D. Ohio 2014)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 28 affirming decision of Commissioner. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan (C,KA)

Download PDF
Norris v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION James E. Norris, Plaintiff, Vs. Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:13 CV 1737 JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN Memorandum of Opinion and Order INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Vernelis K. Armstrong (Doc. 28) recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. Defendant purports to file an objection. For the reasons that follow, the Court ACCEPTS the R&R and for the reasons stated therein, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. ANALYSIS In this case, pro se plaintiff objects to the R&R on one basis. The entirety of the 1 Dockets.Justia.com objection is as follows: Reply to recommended report is to have Keaton, hanahan [sic] and Bell medical records from 2009 thru 2012, subpoena. [sic] the missing records will show that I am disabled under social security law. There the records were not turned in to alj or the appeals council. Attached to the objection is a number of subpoenas and three other documents. The Court concludes that this objection is not entitled to de novo review. In order for the Court to conduct de novo review, the party must identify specific portions of the R&R to which he is objecting. See, Howard v. Sec’y Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6 th Cir. 1991). Here, plaintiff wholly fails in this regard. Plaintiff makes a general statement that he intends to subpoena additional records that will support his claim for disability. This statement is in no way tied to any specific portion of the R&R. Accordingly, the Court finds that de novo review is inappropriate and the Court will review the R&R for clear error. DECISION This Court, having reviewed the R&R and finding no clear error, hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. In accordance with that recommendation, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge in the R&R, which is incorporated herein by reference. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 8/11/14 /s/Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN United States District Judge 2

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.