Pierce v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 5:2020cv01108 - Document 21 (N.D. Ohio 2021)
Court Description: Opinion and Order: The Court has reviewed the report and recommendation and accepts and adopts the same. The Commissioner's decision denying plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act is affirmed. Judge Sara Lioi on 4/30/2021. (E,CK)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pierce v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JULIE L. PIERCE, PLAINTIFF, vs. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:20-cv-1108 JUDGE SARA LIOI OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Parker, recommending that the decision of the defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying the application of plaintiff Julie Pierce (“Pierce” or “plaintiff”) for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act be affirmed. (See Doc. No. 19 (Report and Recommendation [“R&R”]).) The magistrate judge informed the parties that any objection to the R&R must be filed with the Clerk of Courts within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the R&R. (See id.) Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, has informed the Court that she will not be filing an objection to the R&R. (Doc. No. 20.) Under the relevant statute: Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C). Dockets.Justia.com The failure to file written objections to the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff=d, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985). Plaintiff is not objecting to the R&R. The Court has reviewed the report and recommendation and accepts and adopts the same. The Commissioner’s decision denying plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act is affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 30, 2021 HONORABLE SARA LIOI 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.
