Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ABIGALE S.,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
:
:
Case No. 2:25-cv-386
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M.
Vascura
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
Case: 2:25-cv-00386-SDM-CMV Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/30/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
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
Case: 2:25-cv-00386-SDM-CMV Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/30/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>