Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION NICOLE J., Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-964 v. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ORDER Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) for review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. (ECF No. 6.) On July 29, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15-1), and the Commissioner filed a response to Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 16). If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation, the Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court’s review “is limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s decision ‘is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards.’” Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 512 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . .”). The Court has carefully reviewed the record and concludes that the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards. The issues raised in Plaintiff’s Objection were considered and correctly addressed by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES (ECF No. 15-1) Plaintiff’s Objection, ADOPTS (ECF No. 13) the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, OVERRULES (ECF No. 9) Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors, and AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment and terminate this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 9/8/2026 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE