Marilyn Love v. Leland Dudek, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION MARILYN LOVE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) No. 2:25-cv-02241-SHL-tmp LELAND DUDEK, Acting Commissioner ) of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REVERSING AND REMANDING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER Before the Court is Magistrate Tu M. Pham’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), filed January 21, 2026, on Plaintiff Marilyn Love’s Complaint for Review of Decision Denying Plaintiff[’]s Claim for Social Security Benefits. (ECF No. 24.) Love appeals a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental social security income.1 (Id. at PageID 2735.)

The R&R recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded. (Id. at PageID 2756.) The Magistrate Judge reasons that “the ALJ committed reversible error in his failure to evaluate and explain why he concluded that [Love] did not meet listing 11.04(A).” (Id. at PageID 2755.) Thus, the R&R recommends reversing and remanding the case “‘for a discussion of the evidence and an explanation of reasoning’ supporting the determination that [Love’s] severe impairments do not meet or medically equal” listing 11.04(A). (Id. (quoting Frank Bisignano became the Commissioner of Social Security on May 6, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Bisignano is automatically substituted as the defendant.

Reynolds v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 424 F. App’x 411, 416 (6th Cir. 2011)).) Objections to the R&R were due on February 4, and no objections were filed.

A magistrate judge may submit to a district judge proposed findings of fact and recommendations for a disposition. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). “Within 14 days after 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). A district court reviews de novo only those proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law to which a party specifically objects; the rest are reviewed for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

Because no objections have been filed, the Court reviews the R&R in its entirety for clear error and finds none. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and REVERSES and REMANDS the decision of the Commissioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of February, 2026. s/ Sheryl H. Lipman SHERYL H. LIPMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE