Summary
declining to reach similar arguments made by the Commissioner in light of holding on separation-of-powers claim
Summary of this case from Hurrelbrink v. KijakaziOpinion
2:20-cv-6081
02-22-2022
CHRISTINA B., Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
Jolson Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER
SARAH D. MORRISON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Christina B. (“Plaintiff”) brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for Social Security period of disability and disability insurance benefits. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff filed her Statement of Errors on July 27, 2021. (ECF No. 18.) The Commissioner filed a Memorandum in Opposition. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff replied. (ECF No. 25.) On December 21, 2021, Magistrate Judge Jolson issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court overrule Plaintiff's Statement of Errors and affirm the Commissioner's denial of benefits. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff filed her Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 27.) The Commissioner responded. (ECF No. 28.)
If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation, 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); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court's review “is limited to determining whether the Commissioner's decision ‘is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards.'” Ealy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 512 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . .”).
The Court has carefully reviewed the record and concludes that the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards. The issues raised in Plaintiff's Objection were considered and correctly addressed by the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objection (ECF No. 27), ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26), and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE this case from the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
IT IS SO ORDERED.