From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wibly v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
Jul 14, 2010
CASE NO. 4:09-CV-1248 (N.D. Ohio Jul. 14, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO. 4:09-CV-1248.

July 14, 2010


OPINION ORDER [Resolving Doc. 1, Doc. 19.]


On May 31, 2009, Plaintiff Robert David Wibly filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his claim for disability benefits. [Doc. 1.] In his Complaint, Plaintiff Wibly argues that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") who heard his claim erred in determining that Wibly was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, and therefore not entitled to benefits. Wibly argues that the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence, is contrary to law, and constitutes an abuse of discretion. [Doc. 1 at 4.] The Commissioner disputes these claims. [Doc. 10.]

This matter was automatically referred to Magistrate Judge Benita Y. Pearson pursuant to Local Rule 72.2. On May 20, 2010, Magistrate Judge Pearson issued a Report and Recommendation that recommended this Court affirm the Commissioner's denial of Plaintiff Wibly's claim for disability benefits. [Doc. 19.] Neither party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.

The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which the parties have made an objection.28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Parties must file any objections to a Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of service. Id. ;Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to object within this time waives a party's right to appeal the district court's judgment. Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 145 (1985); United States v. Walters , 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Absent objection, a district court may adopt the magistrate judge's report without review. See Thomas , 474 U.S. at 149 .

Moreover, having conducted its own review of the record and the parties' briefs in this case, the Court agrees with the conclusions of Magistrate Judge Pearson. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS in whole Magistrate Judge Pearson's findings of fact and conclusions of law and incorporates them fully herein by reference, and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's denial of benefits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Wibly v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
Jul 14, 2010
CASE NO. 4:09-CV-1248 (N.D. Ohio Jul. 14, 2010)
Case details for

Wibly v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT DAVID WIBLY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of…

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

Date published: Jul 14, 2010

Citations

CASE NO. 4:09-CV-1248 (N.D. Ohio Jul. 14, 2010)

Citing Cases

Otto v. Warden, Hocking Correctional Facility

The failure to timely file written objections to a Magistrate Judge's R R constitutes a waiver of a de novo…

Norman v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

"If a Vocational Expert testifies in response to a hypothetical question that precisely sets forth all the…