Ashley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 5:2015cv00921 - Document 32 (N.D. Ohio 2016)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation (re 31 ) of the Magistrate Judge. The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. This matter is dismissed with prejudice. Judge John R. Adams on 12/9/16. (K,C)

Download PDF
Ashley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 32 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION WILLIAM ERIC ASHLEY, Plaintiff, -vsCOMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:15CV921-JRA JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits in the above-captioned case. Plaintiff sought judicial review of the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) decision, and the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge submitted a report and recommendation (Doc. 31) that this Court affirm the decision of the ALJ and dismiss Plaintiff’s case in its entirety with prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) provides that the parties may object to a report and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after service. To date, no objections have been filed. 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); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Accordingly, the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby adopted. The decision of the administrative law judge is AFFIRMED and the underlying matter is DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 9, 2016 /s/ John R. Adams_______________ 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.