Wallace v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 1:2016cv02246 - Document 16 (N.D. Ohio 2017)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 15 ) affirming the decision of the Commissioner. This matter is dismissed with prejudice. Judge John R. Adams on 7/28/17. (K,C)

Download PDF
Wallace v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION VIRGINIA ANN WALLACE, Plaintiff, -vsCOMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:16-cv-2246 JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff’s application for Child Disability Insurance Benefits, a Period of Disability, and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision, and the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rules 72.2(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge submitted a report and recommendation (Doc. 16) that this Court AFFIRM the decision of the Commissioner. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) provides that the parties may object to a report and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after service. To date, no objections have been filed. As such, 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). Dockets.Justia.com Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby adopted. The decision of the administrative law judge is AFFIRMED, and the underlying matter is DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 28, 2017 /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.