Gaddis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 1:2018cv00032 - Document 19 (N.D. Ohio 2018)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 17 , is hereby adopted. The Court vacates the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and remands this case to the Commissioner for rehearing and a new decision. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 11/9/2018. (JLG)

Download PDF
Gaddis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 19 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JOEL W. GADDIS, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:18CV32 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff Joel W. Gaddis’ applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”), period of disability (“DOB”), and supplemental security income (“SSI”) 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 Jonathan D. Greenberg for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). On October 12, 2018, the magistrate judge submitted a Report & Recommendation (ECF No. 17) recommending that the Court vacate the Commissioner’s decision and the matter be remanded for further proceedings. Specifically, the Recommendation found that the ALJ’s Dockets.Justia.com (1:18CV32) analysis and conclusions regarding Listing 12.05C were not supported by substantial evidence. ECF No. 17 at PageID #: 1196. 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 were, therefore, due on October 26, 2018. On October 25, 2018, Defendant filed a Response to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommended Decision, stating that it will not be filing objections. ECF No. 18. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not filed any 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 Court vacates the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and remands this case to the Commissioner for rehearing and a new decision. IT IS SO ORDERED. November 9, 2018 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson 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.