IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Anthony Semple, Case No. 1:19cv2578

Plaintiff, JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER -vs- Magistrate Judge Carmen Henderson

Andrew Saul, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND Commissioner of Social Security, ORDER

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carmen Henderson (Doc. No. 21), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. No objections have been filed. For the following reasons, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. I. Background On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff Anthony Semple filed a Complaint (Doc. No. 1) challenging the final decision of the Defendant, Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying his applications for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act,

(i), 423, and 1381 et seq. (“Act”). Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge.1

1 This matter was initially referred to Magistrate Judge George Limbert. On July 6, 2020, after Judge Limbert’s retirement, the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Carmen Henderson. On October 28, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, in which she found that (1) substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to give little weight to the opinions of Semple’s treating psychiatrist Samar El Sayegh, M.D., and treating physician Jerry Bell, D.O.; and (2) the ALJ properly determined that Semple’s bipolar disorder did not meet or medically equal the requirements of Listing 12.04. (Doc. No. 21.) The Magistrate Judge, therefore, recommends that the decision of the Commissioner denying Semple’s application for benefits be affirmed. (Id.)

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were to be filed within 14 days of service; i.e., by no later than November 12, 2020. No objections were filed. II. Standard of Review The applicable standard of review of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation depends upon whether objections were made to that report. When objections are made, the district court reviews the case de novo. Specifically, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) states in pertinent part: The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instruction.

Although the standard of review when no objections are made is not expressly addressed in Rule 72, the Advisory Committee Notes to that Rule provide that “[w]hen 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.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes. Moreover, in Thomas v. Arn,

(1985), the United States Supreme Court explained that “[i]t 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.” 2 III. Analysis and Conclusion Here, as stated above, no objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Henderson that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. This Court has nonetheless carefully and thoroughly reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with the findings set forth therein. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Henderson is, therefore, ADOPTED, and the decision of the Commissioner denying Semple’s application for

disability benefits is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Pamela A. Barker_ Date: November 13, 2020 PAMELA A. BARKER U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

3