Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 5:2013cv01705 - Document 18 (N.D. Ohio 2014)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16) and affirms the decision of the Commissioner. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 7/22/2015. (JLG)

Download PDF
Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 18 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION CARLA A. MOORE, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:13cv1705 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Regarding ECF No. 16] On July 10, 2014, Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke issued a Report (“R&R”) recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. ECF No. 16. The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those portions of a report and recommendation to which the parties have made an objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Parties must file any objections to a report and recommendation within fourteen days of service. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to object within this time waives a party's right to appeal the district court's judgment. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 145 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Absent objection, a district court may adopt a magistrate judge’s report without review. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149. In the instant case, Plaintiff filed a response to the R&R stating that she will not file an objection. ECF No. 17. The Court finds that the R&R is supported by the record, and agrees Dockets.Justia.com (5:13cv1705) with the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s R&R (ECF No. 16) and affirms the decision of the Commissioner. IT IS SO ORDERED. July 22, 2014 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.