From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Elliott v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Feb 4, 2011
CASE NO. 1:09 CV 2260 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 4, 2011)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:09 CV 2260.

February 4, 2011


Memorandum of Opinion and Order


INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Vernelis K. Armstrong (Doc. 18), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court reviews the case de novo. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides in pertinent part:

The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

As stated in the Advisory Committee Notes, "When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." In Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the Court held, "It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."

DECISION

This Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error, hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. In accordance with that recommendation, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation, which is incorporated herein by reference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/4/11


Summaries of

Elliott v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Feb 4, 2011
CASE NO. 1:09 CV 2260 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 4, 2011)
Case details for

Elliott v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:Gerald Elliott, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Feb 4, 2011

Citations

CASE NO. 1:09 CV 2260 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 4, 2011)

Citing Cases

Mowery v. Commissioner of Social Security

In determining the extent to which symptoms affect the claimant's capacity to perform basic work activities,…

Dippel v. Commissioner of Social Security

Because symptoms, such as pain, are subjective and difficult to quantify, any symptom-related functional…