Ortega v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2020cv01461 - Document 22 (N.D. Ohio 2021)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with the findings set forth therein. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Burke (ECF # 20 ) is ADOPTED. The final decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff's applications for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. IT IS SO ORDERED. Judge Donald C. Nugent on 7/13/2021. (M,S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ortega v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ODALIZ ORTEGA, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:20CV 1461 JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT V. MEMORANDUM OPINION COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL AND ORDER SECURITY, Defendant. This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke.(ECF #20)Plaintiff challenges the final decision of Defendant Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security("Commissioner") denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits("DIB")and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). Magistrate Judge Burke found that the Administrative Law Judge erred because she failed to properly evaluate Plaintiffs right shoulder impairment and whether a cane is medically necessary. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Burke recommends that the Commissioner's final decision be reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation.(ECF #19)Following the issuance of the Report and Recommendation,the Commissioner filed a Response stating that he would not be filing objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF #21) Standard of Review for a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation The applicable standard ofreview ofa magistrate judge's report and recommendation Dockets.Justia.com depends upon whether objections were made to that report. When objections are made to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge,the district court reviews the case de novo.FED R. Crv.P. 72(b) states: The districtjudge must determine de novo any part ofthe magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or retum the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. The text of Rule 72(b)(3) addresses only the review of portions of reports to which timely objections have been made; it does not indicate the appropriate standard ofreview for portions of the report to which no objections have properly been made. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules commented on the standard ofreview stating,"when no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itselfthat there is no clear error on the face ofthe record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's notes (citations omitted). The U.S. Supreme Court stated: "It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of magistrate judge's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to these findings." Thomas v. Arn,474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Here, no objection was filed by either party. Accordingly, this Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for a finding of clear error on the face ofthe record. Conclusion The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with the findings set forth therein. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Burke(ECF #20)is ADOPTED. The final decision ofthe Commissioner denying Plaintiffs applications for Disability Insurance Benefits("DIB")and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI")is REVERSED -2- and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. IT IS SO ORDERED. DONALD C. NUGENT United States Distriet jWge DATED:
]]>
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.
