Lanham v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, No. 5:2016cv01204 - Document 20 (N.D. Ohio 2017)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order: This Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error, hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. In accordance with that recommendation, the Court hereby VACATES the decision of the Commissioner and REMANDS this matter for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation, which is incorporated herein by reference. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 7/7/17. (LC,S) re 18
Download PDF
Lanham v. Commissioner Social Security Administration Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Pamela J. Lanham, Plaintiff, Vs. Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:16 CV 1204 JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN Memorandum of Opinion and Order INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II (Doc. 18), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be VACATED and this matter REMANDED for further proceedings. No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and the decision of the Commissioner is VACATED and this matter REMANDED to defendant for further proceedings. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 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 Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error, hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. In accordance with that recommendation, the Court hereby VACATES the decision of the Commissioner and REMANDS this matter for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation, which is incorporated herein by reference. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN United States District Judge Chief Judge Dated: 7/7/17 3