UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM C.,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:23-cv-3577 v. JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff brings this action under

(g) for review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his application for Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors (ECF No. 10), the Commissioner’s Memorandum in Opposition (ECF No. 11), Plaintiff’s Reply (ECF No. 12), and the administrative record (ECF No. 7). On October 21, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court overrule Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors and affirm the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff timely filed his Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 14.) The Commissioner did not respond. 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.”

(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.”

(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.,

(6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

(6th Cir. 2007)); see also

(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 Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 14), ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13), and AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment and terminate this case from the docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. 12/30/2024 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE