Easton v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 4:2018cv02289 - Document 26 (N.D. Ohio 2019)
Court Description: Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/26/2019. The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, vacates the Commissioner's final decision, and remands the case for further consideration as set forth in this order. (Related docs. 1 and 23 ).(S,KM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Easton v. Commissioner of Social Security UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO -----------------------------------------------------------------JOYCE ANITA EASTON, : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : : COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL : SECURITY, : : Defendant. : ------------------------------------------------------------------ Doc. 26 Case No. 4:18-cv-2289 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 16] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: In May 2015, Plaintiff Joyce Easton applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.1 The Social Security Administration initially denied her application and denied her application on reconsideration.2 At Easton’s request, an adm“n“strat“ve law ”udge ( ALJ ) considered her case.3 The ALJ found that Plaintiff Easton was not disabled.4 The Social Secur“ty Appeals Counc“l den“ed Pla“nt“ff’s request for rev“ew.5 Easton then brought this lawsuit, asking the Court to award benefits or remand for a new hearing.6 In support of these requests, Easton argues that the ALJ wrongly rejected her attorney’s subm“tted evidence, wrongly failed to call a medical expert, and wrongly gave little weight to her treat“ng phys“c“an’s op“n“on.7 Magistrate Judge Greenberg issued a Report and Recommendat“on ( R&R ) recommending that the Court vacate the final 1 Doc. 16 at 1. Doc. 12 at 184-87, 188-91, 197-203, 204-210. 3 See id. at 211-12, 21-41. 4 Id. at 21-41. 5 Id. at 6-12. 6 Doc. 16. 7 Doc. 16. 2 Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 4:18-cv-2289 Gwin, J. decision and remand the case for further consideration.8 If a party had objected to this R&R, the Court would consider the objected-to portions de novo.9 However, because neither party has objected, the Court may adopt the R&R without review.10 Moreover, the Court has conducted its own review of the briefing and record and agrees with Magistrate Judge Greenberg. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Greenberg’s R&R, VACATES the Comm“ss“oner’s f“nal dec“s“on, and REMANDS the case for further consideration consistent with this opinion and the R&R. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Dated: September 26, 2019 James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 Doc. 23. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 10 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Confus“ngly, the Government f“led a response to Pla“nt“ff’s ob”ect“ons to the R&R. Doc. 24. However, Plaintiff did not file any objections. In its response the Government requests that th“s Court adopt the [R&R], aff“rm the ALJ’s dec“s“on that Pla“nt“ff was not d“sabled, and re”ect Pla“nt“ff’s ob”ect“ons. Doc. 24 at 2. This is a nonsensical request as the R&R does not recommend aff“rm“ng the ALJ’s dec“s“on and, as stated, Pla“nt“ff d“d not make any ob”ect“ons. As such, the Court conducts its review without objections from e“ther party. Even constru“ng the Government’s f“l“ng very liberally as an argument for aff“rm“ng the ALJ’s dec“s“on, the Government has not c“ted to a s“ngle hold“ng of the R&R that “t ob”ects to. As such, the Court will not undertake a de novo review as it would if either party had objected. 9 -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.
