From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Paskewitz v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Nov 19, 2012
Case No. 1:11 CV 2371 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 1:11 CV 2371

11-19-2012

HERB A. PASKEWITZ, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commission of Social Security, Defendant.


Judge Dan Aaron Polster


MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

AND ORDER

Plaintiff Herb A. Paskewitz seeks judicial review of the final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423, and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. (Doc #: 1.) The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke for preparation of a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") pursuant to Local R. 72.2(b)(1). Following briefing, the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R recommending that the Court affirm the Commissioner's denial of Paskewitz's applications for DIB and SSI. (Doc #: 15.) The Magistrate Judge expressly noted that:

[a]ny objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days after the party objecting has been served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh'g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986).
(Id. at 25.)

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) (emphasis added). In this case, 21 days have elapsed since the R&R was issued, and Plaintiff has filed neither an objection nor a request for an extension of time to file one. The failure to timely file written objections to an R&R constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. Arn, 728 F.2d 813; Walters, 638 F.2d 947.

Notwithstanding the lack of an objection, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's thorough, well-written R&R, agrees with the Magistrate Judge's findings, and ADOPTS the Magistrate's recommendation that the Commissioner's decision denying DIB and SSI to Paskewitz be AFFIRMED and the complaint DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

Dan Aaron Polster

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Paskewitz v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Nov 19, 2012
Case No. 1:11 CV 2371 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 2012)
Case details for

Paskewitz v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:HERB A. PASKEWITZ, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commission of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Nov 19, 2012

Citations

Case No. 1:11 CV 2371 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 2012)

Citing Cases

Shirley v. Colvin

While the ALJ did not list every single medication Plaintiff uses, he explicitly addressed Plaintiff's use of…

Patterson v. Berryhill

An ALJ is not "required to discuss each piece of data in its opinion, so long as [she] consider[s] the…