Barbara E. Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

) CASE NO. 1:25-cv-00486 BARBARA E. MOORE, ) ) JUDGE DAVID A. RUIZ Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SECURITY, ) ) Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg. (R. 11).1 Plaintiff Barbara E. Moore’s Complaint challenges the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB). (R. 1) The Magistrate Judge’s R&R recommends the Court vacate Commissioner’s decision and remand the matter for further proceedings. (R. 11). “Within 14 days of being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.3(b). The Commissioner filed a response indicating it will not file an objection to the R&R. R. 12.

I. Standard of Review for a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation The applicable standard of review of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation This case was referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to Local Rule 72.2. de pends upon whether objections were made to that report. When objections are made to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court conducts a de novo review. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) states: Resolving Objections. 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)(3) addresses only the review of reports to which objections have been made but does not specify any standard of review for those reports to which no objections have lodged. 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. Advisory Committee’s notes (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879)).

II. Conclusion The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, finds no clear error, and agrees with the findings set forth therein. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (R. 11) is hereby ADOPTED and incorporated herein. The Commissioner’s decision is hereby VACATED and this matter REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the R&R and this decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: March 13, 2026 David A. Ruiz David A. Ruiz United States District Judge