Kostura v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 1:2016cv01824 - Document 20 (N.D. Ohio 2017)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 19 , affirming the Commissioner's decision and dismissing plaintiff's case in its entirety with prejudice (other related doc 1 ). Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 6/8/2017. (C,KA)
Download PDF
Kostura v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 20 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JASON KOSTURA, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:16CV1824 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff Jason Kostura’s application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) and 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 Plaintiff’s request to review the ALJ’s decision. Plaintiff sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision, and the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker 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. 19) recommending that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision. ECF No. 19 at PageID #: 977. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after service. See also ECF No. 19 at PageID #: 977 (instructing parties to file any objections within fourteen days). No objections have been filed, evidencing satisfaction with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Any further review by this Court Dockets.Justia.com (1:16CV1824) 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 Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Court affirms the Commissioner’s decision and dismisses Plaintiff’s case in its entirety, with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. June 8, 2017 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge 2