Opinion
Case No. 1:18cv2076
07-29-2019
Jeffery Richard Holmes, Plaintiff, v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Magistrate Judge Kathleen Burke
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kathleen Burke (Doc. No. 16), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. No objections have been filed. For the following reasons, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
I. Background
On September 11, 2018, Plaintiff Jeffery Richard Holmes filed a Complaint (Doc. No. 1) challenging the final decision of the Defendant, Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner"), denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423, and 1381 et seq. ("Act"). Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Burke.
Andrew Saul is now the Commissioner of Social Security and is automatically substituted as a party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). --------
On July 11, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, in which she found that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's evaluation of the opinion of consultative examiner Kristin Cola, D.O. (Doc. No. 16.) The Magistrate Judge, therefore, recommended the decision of the Commissioner denying Holmes' application for benefits be affirmed. (Id.) Objections to the Report and Recommendation were to be filed within 14 days of service. No objections were filed.
II. Standard of Review
The applicable standard of review of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation depends upon whether objections were made to that report. When objections are made, the district court reviews the case de novo. Specifically, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) states in pertinent part:
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instruction.Although the standard of review when no objections are made is not expressly addressed in Rule 72, the Advisory Committee Notes to that Rule provide that "[w]hen 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." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes. Moreover, in Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the United States Supreme Court explained that "[i]t 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."
III. Analysis and Conclusion
Here, as stated above, no objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Burke that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. This Court has nonetheless carefully and thoroughly reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and agrees with the findings set forth therein. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Burke is, therefore, ADOPTED, and the decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff's application for DIB and SSI is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Pamela A . Barker
PAMELA A. BARKER
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE Date: July 29, 2019