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

MATTHEW POWE, ) CASENO. 1:20 CV 484 Plaintiff, ) v. JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL } SECURITY, ) Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg (Docket #16), recommending that the Commissioner of Social Security’s final determination, denying Plaintiff, Matthew Powe’s applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act,

(i), 423, 1381 et seq., be affirmed. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by January 14, 2021. No objections were filed. Standard of Review for a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 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 to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court reviews the case de novo. FED. R. Clv. P. 72(b) states:

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 instructions. The text of Rule 72(b) addresses only the review of reports to which objections have been made; it does not indicate the appropriate standard of review for those reports to which no objections have been properly made. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules commented on a district court’s review of unopposed reports by magistrate judges. In regard to subsection (b) of Rule 72, the advisory committee stated: “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.” FED. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted). The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Thomas v. Arn,

(1985): “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.” Conclusion The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with Magistrate Judge Greenberg’s thorough and well-written analysis, and the findings set forth therein. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg (Docket #16) is hereby ADOPTED. The Commissioner’s decision, denying Mr. Powe’s applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416Q), 423, 1381 et seq., is hereby AFFIRMED.

-2-

This case is hereby TERMINATED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONALD C. NUGEN Senior United States District Judge

DATED: ach 15, LoL!

ie