Caley v. Commissioner Social Security, No. 5:2011cv01146 - Document 17 (N.D. Ohio 2011)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: This Court, having reviewed the R&R and finding no clear error, hereby accepts the Magistrate Judges R&R. In accordance with that recommendation, the Court hereby DENIES the Commissioners Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge in the R&R, which is incorporated herein by reference. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 11/14/11. (LC,S) re 15
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Caley v. Commissioner Social Security Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Carla D. Caley, Plaintiff, Vs. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:11 CV 1146 JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN Memorandum of Opinion and Order INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Nancy A. Vecchiarelli (Doc. 15) recommending that the Court deny the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. The government filed a notice indicating that it will not be filing objections to the R&R. Upon review, the R&R is ACCEPTED and the Commissioner’s motion is DENIED. STANDARD OF REVIEW When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court reviews the case de novo. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides in 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 R&R and finding no clear error, hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. In accordance with that recommendation, the Court hereby DENIES the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge in the R&R, which is incorporated herein by reference. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN United States District Judge Dated: 11/14/11 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.
