Abigale S. v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ABIGALE S., Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:25-cv-386 v. Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison Magistrate Judge Chelsey M.

Vascura COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, : Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. (ECF No. 1-2.) Plaintiff filed her Statement of Errors on August 21, 2025. (ECF No. 10.) The Commissioner filed a Memorandum in Opposition. (ECF No. 11.) On December 19, 2025, 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 her Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) and the Commissioner responded (ECF No. 15).

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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(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., 594 F.3d 504, 512 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(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 issue raised in Plaintiff’s Objection was 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 TERMINATE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Sarah D. Morrison SARAH D. MORRISON, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT