Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case: 2:24-cv-04200-ALM-EPD Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 1 of 14 PAGEID #: < pageID>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
THOMAS A.,1
Plaintiff,
V.
Civil Action 2:24-cv-4200 Judge Algenon L. Marbley Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, Thomas A., brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying his application for Social Security Supplemental Security Income benefits ("SSI"). This matter is before the United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Statement of Errors (ECF No. 9), the Commissioner's Memorandum in Opposition, (ECF No. 11), Plaintiff's Reply (ECF No. 12), and the administrative record (ECF No. 7). For the following reasons, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Court SUSTAIN Plaintiff's Statement of Errors (ECF No. 9) and REVERSE the Commissioner of Social Security's non-disability finding and REMAND this case to the Commissioner and the ALJ under Sentence Four of § 405(g), for further administrative proceedings.
1 Pursuant to General Order 22-01, due to significant privacy concerns in social security cases, any opinion, order, judgment or other disposition in social security cases in the Southern District of Ohio shall refer to plaintiffs only by their first names and last initials.
1
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

2
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff protectively applied for SSI on March 29, 2022, alleging disability beginning
January 1, 2014, due to back problems in L3, L4, L5, numbness in his legs, deafness in his right
ear, cysts on left kidney, anxiety, and dysthymic disorder. (R. at 312-18, 340.) Plaintiff’s
application was denied initially in September 2022, and upon reconsideration in December 2022.
(R. at 183-93, 196-205.) On August 21, 2023, Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel,
appeared and testified at a hearing held by an administrative law judge. (R. at 158-82.) On
October 6, 2023, Jason P. Tepley (the “ALJ”) issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not
disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. (R. at 13-41.) The Appeals Council
denied Plaintiff’s request for review and adopted the ALJ’s decision as the Commissioner’s final
decision. (R. at 1-7.) This matter is ripe for judicial review.
II. 	RELEVANT RECORD EVIDENCE
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the transcript in this matter, including Plaintiff’s
medical records, function and disability reports, and testimony as to his conditions and resulting
limitations. Given the claimed errors raised by Plaintiff, rather than summarizing that
information here, the Court will refer and cite to it as necessary in the discussion of the parties’
arguments below.
I. 	ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
On October 6, 2023, the ALJ issued the non-disability determination. (R. at 13-41.) 	At
Case: 2:24-cv-04200-ALM-EPD Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 2 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
step one of the sequential evaluation process,2 the ALJ found that Plaintiff has not engaged in
substantially gainful activity since March 29, 2022, the application date. (R. at 18.) 	The ALJ
found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc and joint disease of
the spine; obesity; hearing loss; an anxiety disorder; and a mood/dysthymic disorder. (Id.) He
further found that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that
meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments described in 20 C.F.R.
Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (R. at 19.)
Before proceeding to step four, the ALJ set forth Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity
(“RFC”), in pertinent part, as follows:
[Plaintiff] has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined
in 20 CFR 416.967(a) except [Plaintiff] could occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch,
and crawl. He could occasionally climb ramps and stairs and could occasionally
balance. [Plaintiff] should avoid climbing ladders, ropes, and scaffolds. [Plaintiff]
should avoid exposure to vibration. He should avoid exposure to moving,
2 Social Security Regulations require ALJs to resolve a disability claim through a five-
step sequential evaluation of the evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). Although a
dispositive finding at any step terminates the ALJ’s review, see Colvin v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d
727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007), if fully considered, the sequential review considers and answers five
questions:
1. 	Is the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity?
2. 	Does the claimant suffer from one or more severe impairments?
3. 	Do the claimant’s severe impairments, alone or in combination, meet or
equal the criteria of an impairment set forth in the Commissioner’s Listing of
Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Subpart P, Appendix 1?
4. 	Considering the claimant's residual functional capacity, can the claimant
perform his or her past relevant work?
5. 	Considering the claimant’s age, education, past work experience, and residual
functional capacity, can the claimant perform other work available in the national
economy?
See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4); see also Henley v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 263, 264 (6th Cir. 2009);
Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 354 (6th Cir. 2001).
Case: 2:24-cv-04200-ALM-EPD Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 3 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
mechanical parts. He should avoid exposure to high, exposed places. [Plaintiff]
should avoid commercial driving. [Plaintiff] could understand, remember, and
carry out simple tasks. He could tolerate occasional changes in a routine work
setting, explained in advanced. [Plaintiff] could tolerate occasional interaction with
coworkers, supervisors, and the general public. [Plaintiff] should avoid work
requiring satisfaction of production quotas or involving assembly line pace.
[Plaintiff] can work in an environment with no more than a moderate noise level,
defined by the SCO. [Plaintiff] would require a one-handed assistive device for all
standing and walking of any duration, but his opposing upper extremity could
perform lifting/carrying up to the exertional requirements of sedentary work.
(R. at 21.)
At step four, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff has no past relevant work. (R. at 33.) At
step five, relying on the VE’s testimony, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff can perform jobs that
exist in significant numbers in the national economy such as a lens gauger or screener. (R. at 33-
34.) The ALJ therefore concluded that Plaintiff has not been under a disability, as defined in the
Social Security Act, since March 29, 2022, the date the application was filed. (R. at 35.)
IV. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing a case under the Social Security Act, the Court “must affirm the
Commissioner’s decision if it ‘is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to
proper legal standards.’” Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007)); see also 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) (“[t]he findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by
substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . .”). Under this standard, “substantial evidence is
defined as ‘more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Rogers, 486
F.3d at 241 (quoting Cutlip v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994)).
Case: 2:24-cv-04200-ALM-EPD Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 4 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
Although the substantial evidence standard is deferential, it is not trivial. The Court must
“‘take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from [the] weight’” of the
Commissioner’s decision. TNS, Inc. v. NLRB, 296 F.3d 384, 395 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 487 (1951)). Nevertheless, “if substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, this Court defers to that finding ‘even if there is substantial
evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion.’” Blakley v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (quoting Key v. Callahan, 119 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)).
Finally, even if the ALJ’s decision meets the substantial evidence standard, “‘a decision of the
Commissioner will not be upheld where the SSA fails to follow its own regulations and where
that error prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives [Plaintiff] of a substantial right.’”
Rabbers, 582 F.3d at 651 (quoting Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 746 (6th Cir.
2007)).
V. 	ANALYSIS
Plaintiff raises two statements of error. First, he contends that the ALJ improperly
evaluated the opinions of the state agency psychologists, Audrey Todd, Ph.D. and Robyn Murry-
Hoffman, Psy.D. (ECF No. 9 at 11-20.) Additionally, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in
evaluating the opinion from his primary care provider, Audrey Baker, APRN CNP, by, inter alia,
failing to properly consider the issue of supportability. (Id. at 11-20.) As discussed below, the
Undersigned agrees that the ALJ did not properly consider the issue of supportability in his
evaluation of the opinion from Plaintiff’s primary care provider, Audrey Baker. This finding
obviates the need for an in-depth analysis of the remaining issues. Thus, the Undersigned need
Case: 2:24-cv-04200-ALM-EPD Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 5 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
not, and does not, resolve the alternative bases that Plaintiff asserts support reversal and remand.
Nevertheless, on remand, the ALJ may consider Plaintiff’s other arguments if appropriate.
A. 	The Medical Opinion of Audrey Baker, APRN-CNP
The starting point for analysis is a discussion of the regulations governing the ALJ’s
consideration of medical opinions. Because Plaintiff filed his application after March 27, 2017,
it is governed by the relatively new regulations describing how evidence is categorized,
considered, and articulated when an RFC is assessed. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c (2017). The
governing regulations describe five different categories of evidence: (1) objective medical
evidence, (2) medical opinions, (3) other medical evidence, (4) evidence from nonmedical
sources, and (5) prior administrative medical findings. 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(a)(1)–(5). Objective
medical evidence is defined as “medical signs, laboratory findings, or both.” 20 C.F.R. §
416.913(a)(1). “Other medical evidence is evidence from a medical source that is not objective
medical evidence or a medical opinion, including judgments about the nature and severity of
your impairments, your medical history, clinical findings, diagnosis, treatment prescribed with
response, or prognosis.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(a)(3). “Evidence from nonmedical sources is any
information or statement(s) from a nonmedical source (including you) about any issue in your
claim.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(a)(4). “Medical opinion” is defined as follows:
(2) Medical opinion. A medical opinion is a statement from a medical source about
what you can still do despite your impairment(s) and whether you have one or more
impairment-related limitations or restrictions....
(A) Your ability to perform physical demands of work activities, such as sitting,
standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions
(including manipulative or postural functions, such as reaching, handling,
stooping, or crouching);
Case: 2:24-cv-04200-ALM-EPD Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 6 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

7
(B) Your ability to perform mental demands of work activities, such as
understanding; remembering; maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace;
carrying out instructions; or responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers,
or work pressures in a work setting;
(C) Your ability to perform other demands of work, such as seeing, hearing, or
using other senses; and
(D) Your ability to adapt to environmental conditions, such as temperature
extremes or fumes....
20 C.F.R. § 416.913(a)(2)
The governing regulations include a section entitled “[h]ow we consider and articulate
medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings for claims filed on or after March 27,
2017.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c. These regulations provide that an ALJ “will not defer or give any
specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior
administrative medical finding(s), including those from your medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §
416.920c(a). Instead, they provide that an ALJ will consider medical source opinions and prior
administrative findings using five factors: supportability, consistency, relationship of source to
claimant, specialization, and other factors tending to support or contradict a medical opinion or
prior administrative medical finding. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(c)(1)–(5).
The regulations explicitly indicate that the “most important factors” to consider are
supportability and consistency. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(b)(2). Indeed, the regulations require an
ALJ to “explain how [they] considered the supportability and consistency factors for a medical
source's medical opinions or prior administrative medical findings” in a benefits determination or
Case: 2:24-cv-04200-ALM-EPD Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 7 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

8
decision and allows that the ALJ “may, but [is] not required to, explain how [they] considered”
the other factors. 20 C.F.R. §416.920c(b)(2).
The applicable regulations provide the following guidance for how ALJs should evaluate
the “supportability” and “consistency” of medical source opinions and prior administrative
findings:
(1) Supportability. The more relevant the objective medical evidence and
supporting explanations presented by a medical source are to support his or her
medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), the more
persuasive the medical opinions or prior administrative medical finding(s) will
be.
(2) Consistency. The more consistent a medical opinion(s) or prior administrative
medical finding(s) is with the evidence from other medical sources and
nonmedical sources in the claim, the more persuasive the medical opinion(s)
or prior administrative medical finding(s) will be.
20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(c)(1)−(2). In practice, this means that the “supportability” factor “concerns
an opinion's reference to diagnostic techniques, data collection procedures/analysis, and other
objective medical evidence.” Reuse v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 5:20−CV−1291, 2021 WL
1697919, at *7 n.6 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 29, 2021) (citing SSR 96−2p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 9 (July 2,
1996) (explaining supportability and inconsistency); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(3), (4)
(differentiating “supportability” and “consistency”); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(c)(1), (2) (further
clarifying the difference between “supportability” and “consistency” for purposes of the post-
March 27, 2017 regulations)). “In other words, “supportability” is the extent to which a medical
source’s own objective findings and supporting explanations substantiate or support the findings
in the opinion.” Goodman v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 2024 WL 623894, at *14 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 14,
2024).
Case: 2:24-cv-04200-ALM-EPD Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 8 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

9
Briefly, for context, the medical opinion at issue is Ms. Baker’s Primary Care Medical
Statement completed in August 2023. (R. at 1231-32.) On the form, Ms. Baker described
Plaintiff’s diagnoses as depression and back pain. (R. at 1231.) 	Further, she noted Plaintiff’s
symptoms as back pain, dizziness with a change in position, fatigue, disturbed sleep, dysphoric
mood, and shortness of breath with exertion. (Id.) 	She indicated by check mark that Plaintiff
would need unscheduled breaks throughout the workday due to muscle weakness, chronic
fatigue, pain/parasthesias, numbness, and adverse effects of his medication. (R. 1231-1232.)
She also indicated by check mark that Plaintiff would need a cane or other hand-held assistive
device because of problems with balance, pain, dizziness, and weakness. (R. at 1232.)
Additionally, she noted by check mark that Plaintiff’s impairments would likely cause him to
have good and bad days, and he would also likely be absent due to his impairments more than
four days per month. (Id.) Finally, she noted by check mark that the symptoms and functional
limitations described in her evaluation were reasonably consistent with the signs, clinical
findings, and labs or tests. (Id.) With respect to Plaintiff’s sit/stand/walk limitations, Ms. Baker
stated that additional testing was needed. (R. at 1231.)
The ALJ found Ms. Baker’s assessment “no more than partially persuasive,” discussing it
in this way:
The [ALJ] has read and considered the August 2023 opinion of Ms. Baker APRN,
CNP. Ms. Baker completed a functional form on behalf of [Plaintiff]; however, it
should be noted the form was not completed in its entirety. The provider did leave
portions of the form blank, citing [Plaintiff] would require additional testing to
complete such questions. For example, the provider did not provide an opinion
regarding exertional limitations. The provider assessed [Plaintiff] would require
unscheduled breaks due to muscle weakness, pain, and fatigue; would need a cane;
would have good days and bad days; and would miss more than 4 days of work per
Case: 2:24-cv-04200-ALM-EPD Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 9 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

10
month. The [ALJ] has not adopted this opinion verbatim. First, the form was not
completed in its entirety. Second, while the nurse practitioner cited [Plaintiff]
would require breaks due to muscle weakness, pain, and fatigue, such significant
breaks were not entirely consistent with the objective evidence of record.
Objectively the file supported no more than more recently documented slight lower
extremity weakness at 4/5 with 5/5 being normal. Additionally, [Plaintiff]’s pain
was generally managed with medications, including dual treatment Suboxone. The
[ALJ] find[s] use of a cane was supported given the presence of the slight weakness,
slight sensory deficit isolated to the right thigh, and the spinal imaging showing
ongoing lumbar spine degeneration with sacroiliitis. The [ALJ] finds the opinion
noting [Plaintiff] would be absent more than 4 days per month is inconsistent with
the evidence of record. [Plaintiff] was engaging in no more than conservative
treatment modalities with medications and physical therapy that he reported caused
no side effects. [Plaintiff] was involved in no invasive procedures during the period
under adjudication. He required no recurrent emergent treatment for symptom
exacerbations, required no recovery period for procedures or treatments, and there
was no recommendation for any invasive surgical procedures with a long-term
recovery period. Further, [Plaintiff] required no hospitalization with a durational
recovery period noted in the record during the period under adjudication. For these
reasons, the [ALJ] finds Ms. Baker’s opinion no more than partially persuasive as
discussed herein.
(R. at 31-32.)
Against this backdrop, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by not following the requirements
of SSR 96-8p and 20 C.F.R. 416.920c. (ECF No. 9 at 17-20.) 	Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ
erred in his consideration of both the consistency and supportability factors. With respect to the
issue of consistency, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ’s analysis was contradictory. As noted above,
Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to properly consider the issue of supportability altogether. (Id.
at 19.) The Commissioner, on the other hand, contends that the ALJ’s evaluation of Ms. Baker’s
opinion was reasonable. 	As support, the Commissioner notes that the ALJ credited Plaintiff’s
pain, just not to the extent of the limitations in Ms. Baker’s opinion or Plaintiff’s claims of
disability. 	With respect to the issue of whether the ALJ properly considered the factors of
Case: 2:24-cv-04200-ALM-EPD Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 10 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

11
supportability and consistency when evaluating Ms. Baker’s opinion, the Commissioner simply
declares that he did. (ECF No. 11 at 4-6.)
As the above excerpt confirms, the ALJ failed to sufficiently discuss the supportability of
Ms. Baker’s opinion—i.e., the ALJ did not adequately discuss whether or not Ms. Baker’s “own
objective findings and supporting explanations substantiate or support the findings in the
opinion.” Indeed, the Undersigned cannot discern what specific evidence the ALJ relied on in
his evaluation of Ms. Baker’s opinion, given his lack of both citations to the record or a more
specific description of the records themselves. For example, the ALJ refers generally to “the
objective evidence of record,” and “the file.” (R. at 31.) 	Further, the ALJ finds that Plaintiff’s
pain was generally managed with medications and that the use of a cane was supported under
various circumstances but says nothing to indicate whether he is looking to Ms. Baker’s own
findings or whether he is looking to evidence from other medical sources. The same is true of
the ALJ’s conclusion regarding Ms. Baker’s opinion that Plaintiff would be absent more than
four days per month. While the ALJ recites various record evidence to support his conclusions,
he does not do so in a way that clarifies whether this evidence is specific to Ms. Baker’s findings
or whether the ALJ is comparing other medical sources. While it may be that by “the file” the
ALJ meant Ms. Baker’s own records and that by “evidence of record” he was referring to other
sources, the Undersigned should not have to guess the ALJ’s intention here. Beyond this, the
ALJ fails to explain why Ms. Baker’s admission that additional testing was needed before she
could confirm certain limitations undermined the persuasiveness of her opinion as to the
limitations she did find.
Case: 2:24-cv-04200-ALM-EPD Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 11 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

12
Importantly, the Undersigned is not required to scour the 887 pages of Plaintiff’s medical
records to find the evidence to which the ALJ alludes here. Hardy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 554
F. Supp. 3d 900, 909 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (“It is not the role of a reviewing court to comb the
record and imagine manifold ways in which the factors could have been applied to the evidence
that was presented.”); Stemple v. Kijakazi, No. 1:20-CV-485, 2021 WL 4060411, at *8 (N.D.
Ohio Sept. 7, 2021) (“Where the ALJ’s decision lacks evidentiary support or is so poorly
articulated as to prevent meaningful review, the case must be remanded.”) (quoting Castello v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 5:09 CV 2569, 2011 WL 610590, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 10, 2011)). The
Commissioner’s cursory discussion and post hoc addition of certain record citations does nothing
to change this. It is the ALJ's job in the first instance to articulate his reasoning. Hardy, at 909
(noting that “[t]he administrative adjudicator has the obligation in the first instance to show his
or her work”). Indeed, the Court may not rely on post hoc arguments to find that the ALJ’s
decision properly evaluated the supportability factor. Marika G. v. O'Malley, No. 3:24-CV-
00105-CRS-RSE, 2024 WL 5465207, at *5 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 19, 2024). Instead, it must find that
the stated reasons “build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the result.”
The Court cannot do so here. For this reason, the Court cannot find that substantial supports the
ALJ’s finding that Ms. Baker’s opinion was partially persuasive regarding Plaintiff’s physical
limitations. Goodman v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:22-CV-00995, 2024 WL 623894, at *15 (N.D.
Ohio Feb. 14, 2024). 	Accordingly, remand is warranted.
Case: 2:24-cv-04200-ALM-EPD Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 12 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

13
VI. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors (ECF No.
9) be SUSTAINED, that the Court REVERSE the Commissioner of Social Security’s
nondisability finding and REMAND this case under Sentence Four of § 405(g).
VII. 	PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that
party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and
Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in
question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a forfeiture of the right to de novo review by the District Judge
and forfeiture of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. 	Even when timely
objections are filed, appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is forfeited. Robert
v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s
report, which fails to specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for
appeal . . . .”) (citation omitted)).
Date:
December 3, 2025 	/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:24-cv-04200-ALM-EPD Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 13 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:24-cv-04200-ALM-EPD Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 14 of 14 PAGEID #: < pageID>
14