Bokisa v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2016cv00083 - Document 15 (N.D. Ohio 2017)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 14 , is hereby adopted. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 2/6/2017. (JLG)
Download PDF
Bokisa v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 15 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION PAULA MARY BOKISA, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:16CV00083 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff Paula Mary Bokisa’s application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) after a hearing in the above-captioned case. That decision became the final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security when the Appeals Council denied the request to review the ALJ’s decision. The claimant sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision, and the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). The magistrate judge submitted a Report (ECF No. 14) recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed as supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the magistrate judge recommends that the Court find: (1) the ALJ did not err in finding Plaintiff’s gastrointestinal problems were not severe; (2) the gastrointestinal problems were considered in the ALJ’s RFC determination; and (3) the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence. ECF No. 14 at PageID #: 894. In addition, the magistrate judge recommends that the Court find the ALJ’s explanations for partially discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony are reasonable Dockets.Justia.com (1:16CV00083) and supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. at PageID #: 898. Finally, the magistrate judge recommends that the Court find the ALJ did not err in finding Plaintiff capable of performing her past work of accounting clerk, customer service clerk, and floral designer because substantial evidence supports the hypothetical questions the ALJ posed to the Vocational Expert. Id. at PageID #: 899. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that objections to a Report and Recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service. Objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation were, therefore, due on February 1, 2017. Neither party has filed objections, evidencing satisfaction with the magistrate judge’s recommendations. 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), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 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. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant. IT IS SO ORDERED. February 6, 2017 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge 2