Wheeler v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2021cv00185 - Document 29 (S.D. Ohio 2022)
Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY adopting the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 27 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 10/28/2022. (rrs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wheeler v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION JULIE W., Plaintiff, vs. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. : : : : : : : : : : Case No. 1:21-cv-185 Judge Timothy S. Black Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 27). This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on August 12, 2022, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 27). Plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. 28). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), “a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” of the Magistrate Judge. Id. (emphasis added). “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a district court does not need to independently review any of the magistrate judge’s conclusions that are not objected to. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy Dockets.Justia.com itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Objections must be specific enough to permit “the district court to ‘focus attention on those issues…that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute,’ thereby preventing the district court from being ‘sandbagged’ by failure to object.” Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991) (quoting Thomas, 474 U.S. at 147). “The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object.” Cole v. Yukins, 7 F. App’x 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995)). Additionally, “[a]n ‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate[ judge]’s suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.” VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F. Supp. 2d 934, 937 (E.D. Mich. 2004). Plaintiff, with the assistance of counsel, filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff asserts five objections, however, each objection merely reiterates her supplemental statement of errors. 1 Indeed, a vast majority of Plaintiff’s objections read verbatim to her supplemental statement of errors. The 1 Compare Plaintiff’s supplemental statement of errors (Doc. 26) with her objections (Doc. 28): Objection 1 Objection 2 Objection 3 Objection 4 Objection 5 Doc. 26 at 2-3 Doc. 26 at 3-4 Doc. 26 at 4 Doc. 26 at 4-7 Doc. 26 at 8 Doc. 28 at 2-3 Doc. 28 at 3 Doc. 28 at 3-4 Doc. 28 at 4-7 Doc. 28 at 7-8 2 Magistrate Judge carefully considered and analyzed each of Plaintiff’s errors (now reasserted as objections) before recommending that each error should be overruled. Plaintiff’s complete failure to assert specific objections is tantamount to a complete failure to object. The Court, having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and pleadings, is satisfied that there is nothing clearly erroneous or contrary to law on the face of the record. Accordingly, 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) is ADOPTED in its entirety. 2. Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 28) are OVERRULED. 3. Plaintiff’s supplemental statement of errors (Doc. 26) is OVERRULED. 4. The Commissioner’s non-disability finding is AFFIRMED. 5. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner and terminate this action upon the docket of this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Timothy S. Black Timothy S. Black United States District Judge Date: 10/28/2022 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
