Franklin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 3:2009cv00242 - Document 16 (S.D. Ohio 2010)
Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FILED ON JUNE 10, 2010 15 ; VACATING THE COMMISSIONER'S NON~DISABILITY DECISION; MAKING NO DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER PLAINTIFF ERIK FRANKLIN WAS UNDER A "DISABILITY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT; REMANDING THIS MATTER TO THE COMMISSIONER AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE UNDER SENTENCE FOUR OF42 U.S.C. §405(G) FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION CONSISTENT WITH THIS DECISION AND ENTRY AND THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; AND TERMINATING THE CASE ON THE DOCKET OF THIS COURT. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 6/30/2010. (jwd1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DMSION AT DAYTON ERIK FRANKLIN, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:09cv00242 vs. District Judge Walter Herbert Rice Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FILED ON JUNE 10, 2010 (Doe. #15); VACATING THE COMMISSIONER'S NON~DISABILITY DECISION; MAKING NO DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER PLAINTIFF ERIK FRANKLIN WAS UNDER A "DISABILITY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT; REMANDING THIS MATTER TO THE COMMISSIONER AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE UNDER SRNTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. §405(G) FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION CONSISTENT WITH THIS DECISION AND ENTRY AND THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; AND TERMINATING THE CASE ON THE DOCKET OF THIS COURT The Court has conducted a.d&! DQYQ review ofthe Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington (Doc. #15), 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. The Report and Recommendations filed on June 10, 2010 (Doc. #15) is ADOPTED in full; 2. No fmding is made as to whether Plaintiff Erik Franklin was under a "disabilitY' within the meaning of the Social Security Act; 3. 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 this Decision and Entry and the Report and Reconnnendations;and 4. The case is terminated on the docket of this Court. Walter Herbert Rice 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.
