Alex R. Mabry v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

PEARSON, J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ALEX R MABRY, ) ) CASE NO. 1:25CV1144 Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON ) FRANK BISIGNANO, ) COMMISSIONER OF ) SOCIAL SECURITY, ) ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION Defendant. ) AND ORDER An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff Alex R Mabry’s applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”) after a hearing in the above-captioned case. That decision became the final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security when the Appeals Council denied the request to review the ALJ’s decision. The claimant sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision, and the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Reuben J. Sheperd for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). On March 3, 2026, the magistrate judge submitted a Report (ECF No. 12) recommending that the Court vacate the Commissioner’s decision and remand the case to the Commissioner.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service. Objections to the Report were, therefore, due on March 17, 2026. Neither party has timely filed objections. Therefore, the Court must assume that the (1:25CV1144) parties are satisfied with the magistrate judge’s recommendations. Any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff'd, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge is hereby adopted.

The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is vacated because the ALJ failed to apply proper legal standards when evaluating the prior administrative medical findings. The Commissioner need not reassess on the basis of the other issues raised in Plaintiff's appeal. The case is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings and a new decision. The Appeals Council shall remand this case to an ALJ for further consideration of Plaintiff's claims and development of the administrative record — including offering Plaintiff a new hearing — to determine whether Plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. After completing the foregoing and conducting any record development the ALJ deems appropriate, the ALJ shall issue a new decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 18, 2026 /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Date Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge