Mendoza v. Commissioner Social Security, No. 3:2009cv00013 - Document 11 (S.D. Ohio 2009)
Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY - It therefore is ORDERED THAT:1. The Report and Recommendations filed on November 24, 2009 10 is ADOPTED in full; 2. The Commissioners non-disability finding is VACATED; 3. No finding is made as to whether Plaintiff Rondia Mendo za was under a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act during the period of time at issue; 4. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner and the Administrative Law Judge under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration consistent with the Report and Recommendations adopted herein; and 5. The case is TERMINATED on the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 12/15/2009. (jwd1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON RONDIA K. MENDOZA, : Plaintiff, : Case No. 3:09CV0013 vs. : MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, : Defendant. District Judge Thomas M. Rose Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington : : 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. #10), to whom this case originally was 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 therefore is ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendations filed on November 24, 2009 (Doc. #10) is ADOPTED in full; 2. The Commissioner s non-disability finding is VACATED; 3. No finding is made as to whether Plaintiff Rondia Mendoza was under a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act during the period of time at issue; 4. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner and the Administrative Law Judge under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration consistent with the Report and Recommendations adopted herein; and 4. The case is TERMINATED on the docket of this Court. December 15, 2009 *s/THOMAS M. ROSE Thomas M. Rose United States District Judge -2- NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within ten [10] days after being served with this Report and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e), this period is extended to thirteen [13] days (excluding intervening Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays) because this Report is being served by mail. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party's objections within ten [10] days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F. 2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). -3-
]]>
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.
