Schild v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 1:2016cv02926 - Document 24 (N.D. Ohio 2018)
Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order: This Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error, hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. In accordance with that recommendation, the Court hereby awards attorney fees in the amount of $4,258.38 and costs in the amount of $400.00 to plaintiff. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 9/26/18. (LC,S) re 23 , 20
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Schild v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Christopher Schild, Plaintiff, Vs. Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:16 CV 2926 JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN Memorandum of Opinion and Order INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz (Doc. 23), recommending that the Court award attorney fees in the amount of $4,258.38 and costs in the amount of $400.00. No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and attorney fees in the amount of $4,258.38, together with costs in the amount of $400.00, shall be awarded to plaintiff. STANDARD OF REVIEW When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the 1 Dockets.Justia.com district court reviews the case de novo. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides in pertinent part: The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. As stated in the Advisory Committee Notes, “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” In Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the Court held, “It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” DECISION This Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error, hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. In accordance with that recommendation, the Court hereby awards attorney fees in the amount of $4,258.38 and costs in the amount of $400.00 to plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN United States District Judge Chief Judge Dated: 9/26/18 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.
