Tharp v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 3:2007cv00466 - Document 14 (S.D. Ohio 2009)

Court Description: Decision and Entry - It is therefore ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendations filed on February 5, 2009 (Doc. # 13 ) is ADOPTED in full; 2. The Commissioners non-disability determination is vacated; 3. No finding is made regarding whether Plai ntiff Edward Tharp is under a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act; 4. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g), this case is remanded to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration and an Administrative L aw Judge for further consideration consistent with this Decision and Entry and with the Report and Recommendations (Doc. [#13]); and 5. This case is terminated on the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 02/24/09. (phil1, ) Modified on 2/24/2009 (phil1, ).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON EDWARD THARP, : Plaintiff, : Case No. 3:07cv00466 : vs. : MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, District Judge Thomas M. Rose Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington : : Defendant. : DECISION AND ENTRY The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington (Doc. #13), to whom this case was originally referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. It is therefore ORDERED that: 1. 2. The Report and Recommendations filed on February 5, 2009 (Doc. #13) is ADOPTED in full; The Commissioner s non-disability determination is vacated; 3. No finding is made regarding whether Plaintiff Edward Tharp is under a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act; 4. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g), this case is remanded to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration and an Administrative Law Judge for further consideration consistent with this Decision and Entry and with the Report and Recommendations (Doc. #13); and 5. This case is terminated on the docket of this Court. February 24, 2009 *S/THOMAS M. ROSE Thomas M. Rose 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.