Whited v. Commissioner of Social Security

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Zachary Whited,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Case No. 5:24cv2199
JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER
Magistrate Judge Amanda M. Knapp
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Amanda M. Knapp (Doc. No. 12), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be vacated
and remanded pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four. The Commissioner filed a Response
indicating that he would not be filing Objections. 	(Doc. No. 13.) 	For the following reasons, the
Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 12) is ADOPTED. 	The decision of the Commissioner is
VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further consideration consistent with the Report &
Recommendation.
I. 	Background
On December 18, 2024, Plaintiff Zachary Whited filed a Complaint (Doc. No. 1) challenging
the final decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying his
applications for Child’s Insurance Benefits (“CIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under
the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423, and 1381 et seq. (“Act”). Pursuant to Local Rule
72.2(b), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Knapp.
Case: 5:24-cv-02199-PAB Doc #: 14 Filed: 12/01/25 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

2
On November 24, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, in which
she found that she was unable to meaningfully review the ALJ’s decision to determine whether it was
supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to sufficiently explain why she (i.e., the
ALJ) did not provide for assistance in learning new tasks and/or time to transition to task changes in
the RFC, as contemplated in the state agency psychological opinions. (Doc. No. 12.) For this reason,
the Magistrate Judge recommended that the decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s
applications for benefits be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with
the Report & Recommendation. (Id.) Objections to the Report and Recommendation were to be filed
within 14 days of service, i.e., by no later than December 8, 2025. 	On November 26, 2025, the
Commissioner filed a Response indicating that he would not be filing Objections. (Doc. No. 13.)
II. 	Standard of Review
The applicable standard of review of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
depends upon whether objections were made to that report. When objections are made, the district
court reviews the case de novo. Specifically, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) states in pertinent
part:
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 instruction.
Although the standard of review when no objections are made is not expressly addressed in Rule 72,
the Advisory Committee Notes to that Rule provide that “[w]hen 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.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes. Moreover, in Thomas v. Arn,
Case: 5:24-cv-02199-PAB Doc #: 14 Filed: 12/01/25 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

3
474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the United States Supreme Court explained that “[i]t does not appear that
Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions,
under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”
III. 	Analysis and Conclusion
Here, as stated above, no objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Knapp that the decision of the Commissioner be vacated and the case remanded.
This Court has nonetheless carefully and thoroughly reviewed the Report and Recommendation and
agrees with the findings set forth therein. 	The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Knapp (Doc. No. 12) is, therefore, ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s
applications for CIB and SSI is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings
consistent with the Report & Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Pamela A. Barker_
Date: December 1, 2025 	PAMELA A. BARKER
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 5:24-cv-02199-PAB Doc #: 14 Filed: 12/01/25 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>