Acosta v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Full title: CARMEN ACOSTA, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

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

Date published: Jul 3, 2017

CASE NO. 1:16CV1737 (N.D. Ohio Jul. 3, 2017)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:16CV1737

07-03-2017

CARMEN ACOSTA, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

PEARSON, J.

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

An Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") denied Plaintiff Carmen Acosta's application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") after a hearing in the above-captioned case. That decision became the final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security when the Appeals Council denied the request to review the ALJ's decision. The claimant sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision, and the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1).

The magistrate judge submitted a Report (ECF No. 20) recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. Specifically, the magistrate judge recommends that the Court find: (1) the ALJ's decision regarding the functional limitations caused by Plaintiff's kidney stones, hyperparathyroidism, and other symptoms is supported by substantial evidence (ECF No. 20 at PageID #: 849-51); (2) the ALJ's decision regarding functional limitations caused by Plaintiff's medications is supported by substantial evidence (ECF No. 20 at PageID #: 852-55); and (3) the ALJ's decision regarding Plaintiff's mental impairments is supported by substantial evidence (ECF No. 20 at PageID #: 855-58).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that objections to a Report and Recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service. Objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation were, therefore, due on June 30, 2017. Neither party has filed objections, evidencing satisfaction with the magistrate judge's recommendations. Any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court's limited resources. Thomas v . Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff'd , 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v . Secretary of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v . Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge is hereby adopted. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED. July 3, 2017
Date

/s/ Benita Y . Pearson

Benita Y. Pearson

United States District Judge