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

Tracey M. Lenihan, Case No. 1:24cv585

Plaintiff, JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER -vs- Magistrate Judge James E. Grimes, Jr.

Commissioner of Social Security, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant.

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James E. Grimes, Jr. (Doc. No. 11), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be vacated and remanded. No objections have been filed. For the following reasons, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further consideration consistent with the Report & Recommendation. I. Background On March 29, 2024, Plaintiff Tracey M. Lenihan filed a Complaint (Doc. No. 1) challenging the final decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act,

(i), 423, and 1381 et seq. (“Act”). Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Grimes. On September 16, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, in which he found that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s allegations of hand and arm symptoms pursuant to Social Security Ruling 16-3p. (Doc. No. 12.) The Magistrate Judge, therefore, recommended that the decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s application for benefits be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Report & Recommendation. (Id.) Objections to the Report and Recommendation were to be filed within 14

days of service, i.e., by no later than September 30, 2024. 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 Grimes that the decision of the Commissioner be vacated and the case remanded. 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 Grimes is, therefore, ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s applications

for DIB and SSI is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Report & Recommendation. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Pamela A. Barker_ Date: October 1, 2024 PAMELA A. BARKER U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

3