Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
TIFFANY J.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:24-cv-4106
v. 	JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
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 Social Security
disability benefits. On December 23, 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. 14.) Plaintiff timely filed her Objection
to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (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 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,
Case: 2:24-cv-04106-EAS-CHG Doc #: 16 Filed: 03/17/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

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 issues raised in Plaintiff’s Objection were considered and correctly addressed by
the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 15), ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14), and AFFIRMS the
Commissioner’s decision. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate this case from the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3/17/2026 	s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE 	EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 2:24-cv-04106-EAS-CHG Doc #: 16 Filed: 03/17/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>