From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mataraza v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Nov 29, 2012
CASE NO. 1:11 CV 1787 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 29, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:11 CV 1787

11-29-2012

Frank R. Mataraza, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. Astrue, Defendant.


JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN


Memorandum of Opinion and Order

INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert (Doc. 17), 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.

_____________

PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Mataraza v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Nov 29, 2012
CASE NO. 1:11 CV 1787 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 29, 2012)
Case details for

Mataraza v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:Frank R. Mataraza, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. Astrue, Defendant.

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

Date published: Nov 29, 2012

Citations

CASE NO. 1:11 CV 1787 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 29, 2012)

Citing Cases

Kuhn v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

" Id. The Sixth Circuit and Northern District of Ohio have consistently applied the rule that an ALJ need not…