Jurcago v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Jurcago v. Commissioner of Social Security

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

: CHRISTOPHER JOHN JURCAGO, : CASE NO. 5:23-cv-01187 : Plaintiff, : OPINION & ORDER : [Resolving Doc. 1] vs. : : COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL : SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, : : Defendant. : :

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Plaintiff Christopher John Jurcago seeks judicial review of the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”).1 On May 2, 2024, Magistrate Judge Jennifer Dowell Armstrong issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court vacate and remand the Commissioner’s final decision for further proceedings.2 Magistrate Judge Armstrong found that the ALJ did not properly evaluate Plaintiff Jurcago’s diabetes with peripheral neuropathy at Step Three of the disability evaluation process.3 Magistrate Judge Armstrong recommended that Jurcago’s case be remanded in order to provide the ALJ an opportunity to properly evaluate evidence of Jurcago’s diabetes with peripheral neuropathy.4

1 Doc. 1. Plaintiff and Defendant filed merits briefs. Docs. 6, 8. 2 Doc. 9. 3 at PageID #: 1874. Judge Armstrong ordered that objections to the R&R were due by May 16, 2024.5 Neither party objected to the R&R. The Federal Magistrates Act requires district courts to conduct a review of only objected-to portions of an R&R.6 Absent objection, district courts may adopt an R&R without review.7 Defendant did not object to the R&R, and this Court may adopt Magistrate Judge Armstrong’s R&R without further review. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Armstrong’s R&R. The Court VACATES and REMANDS the Commissioner’s final decision for further proceedings

consistent with this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 30, 2024 JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5 at PageID #: 1889. 6

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1). 7 ,

474 U.S. 140

, 149–52 (1985). Failure to timely object may waive a party’s right to appeal the district court’s order adopting the R&R. . at 155; ,

638 F.2d 947

, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981)

Reference

Status
Unknown