Henriquez Ascencio v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON EVA A., : : Plaintiff, : Case No. 3:25-cv-292 : v. : Judge Thomas M. Rose : COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL : Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, : : Defendant. : ______________________________________________________________________________ ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF[’S] OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. NO. 13); ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. NO. 12); AND, AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ______________________________________________________________________________ This Social Security disability benefits appeal is currently before the Court on Plaintiff[’s] Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Objections”) (Doc. No. 13). Plaintiff Eva A. (“Plaintiff”) challenges Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) (Doc. No. 12), wherein Magistrate Judge Bowman recommends affirming the Defendant Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s (“Defendant”) decision to deny Plaintiff’s application for social security disability insurance benefits. (Doc. No. 13 at PageID 645-46.) In particular, Magistrate Judge Bowman opines that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) considering Plaintiff’s case at the administrative level supported their findings regarding the credibility of medical expert opinion with substantial evidence. (Doc. No. 12 at PageID 641-42.) On August 6, 2026, Magistrate Judge Bowman issued her Report. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff timely filed her Objections on August 20, 2026. This matter is now ripe for review and decision. If a party objects within the allotted time to a United States magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then 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.” Id. The Court “may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. Regarding appeals from decisions of the Social Security Administration, the Court’s “review of the ALJ’s decision is limited to whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and whether the findings of the ALJ are supported by substantial evidence.” Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009). The Court has conducted a de novo review in this case and finds Plaintiff’s objection to Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report to be not well-taken. Indeed, upon conducting a de novo review of the record in this case, the Court agrees that the ALJ presiding over Plaintiff’s case supported their findings in relation to the opinions of medical experts with substantial evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 13) are OVERRULED. The Court ACCEPTS the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 12), and, for the reasons set forth more fully in the Report, rules as follows: 1. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED; and 2. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE this case on the Court’s docket. DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Wednesday, September 16, 2026. s/Thomas M. Rose ________________________________ THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE