Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MICAH B.,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:25-cv-78
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. NO.
18); ADOPTING, IN FULL, THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC.
NO. 17); AND TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE COURT’S DOCKET
______________________________________________________________________________
This Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the Court on the Objection to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (the “Objection”) (Doc. No. 18), filed by Plaintiff
Micah B. (“Plaintiff”) in response to Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.’s Report and
Recommendation (the “Report”) (Doc. No. 17). As Magistrate Judge Silvain explained in the
Report, Plaintiff applied to the Social Security Administration (the “SSA”) for Child Disability
Benefits (“CDB”) in April of 2021 and Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) in September of
2023, alleging disability beginning on October 31, 2009, due to autism. (Doc. No. 17 at PageID
875.) After Plaintiff’s applications were denied, he requested a telephone hearing before
Administrative Law Judge Nicholas J. Schwalbach (“ALJ Schwalbach”). Following the hearing,
ALJ Schwalbach issued an agency decision denying Plaintiff’s applications for CDB and DIB.
(Doc. No. 8-2 at PageID 62–73.) Subsequently, on review of ALJ Schwalbach’s decision, the
Administrative Appeals Council (the “AAC”) issued the final decision of the Commissioner of
Case: 3:25-cv-00078-TMR-PBS Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/02/26 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Social Security, conclusively denying Plaintiff’s applications for CDB and DIB. (Doc. No. 8-2 at
PageID 28–30.)
In the Report, Magistrate Judge Silvain recommended that Plaintiff’s Statement of Specific
Errors (Doc. No. 11) be overruled and the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. (Doc. No. 17 at
PageID 887.) Plaintiff timely filed his Objection to the Report (Doc. No. 18), and Defendant did
not file a response to Plaintiff’s Objection. Thus, this matter is ripe for review and decision.
If a party objects within the allotted time to a United States magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, then 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.” Id. The Court
“may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Id. In Social Security DIB appeals, 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.”1 Winn v. Comm’r. of Soc. Sec., 615 Fed. App’x. 315, 320 (6th Cir.
2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The Commissioner’s decision satisfies the substantial
evidence requirement if the decision is supported by ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Id. (quoting Gayheart v. Comm’r. of Soc. Sec.,
710 F.3d 365, 374 (6th Cir. 2013)). Notably, “a substantiality of evidence evaluation does not
permit a selective reading of the record.” Brooks v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 531 F. App’x 636, 641
(6th Cir. 2013). Instead, “[s]ubstantiality of the evidence must be based upon the record taken as
a whole.” Id. (quoting Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 388 (6th Cir. 1984)).
1 Plaintiff does not argue ALJ Schwalbach applied in improper legal standard. The Court, therefore, limits its analysis
to whether ALJ Schwalbach’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.
Case: 3:25-cv-00078-TMR-PBS Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/02/26 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
The Court first notes that Plaintiff’s objections are aimed not at Magistrate Judge Silvain’s
Report, but rather at ALJ Schwalbach’s conclusions. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 18 at PageID 889 (“The
ALJ erred in mischaracterizing evidence of record and failing to consider reasons for not seeking
medical treatment.”).) As a general rule, “objections to an R&R must address errors in the
Magistrate Judge’s R&R, not just the underlying ALJ’s decision.” Cooper v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
No. 20-11855, 2021 WL 3928943, at *1 n. 1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 2, 2021). The Court nevertheless
construes Plaintiff’s objections as ones lodged against the Report, as other courts have done. Id.
From what the Court can gather, Plaintiff believes ALJ Schwalbach’s determination was
not supported by substantial evidence for two reasons. (Doc. No. 18 at PageID 889.) First, in
making his determination regarding Plaintiff’s limitations in understanding, remembering, and
applying information, ALJ Schwalbach cited to a “mental status exam”—an exam which,
according to Plaintiff, was never conducted. (Id. at PageID 890, 892.) Second, Plaintiff takes issue
with ALJ Schwalbach’s purported mischaracterization of the record as a whole when analyzing
Plaintiff’s symptoms pursuant to SSR 16-3p. (Id. at PageID 891.) The Court addresses each
argument in turn.
For his first point of error, Plaintiff avers ALJ Schwalbach relied on certain records in
determining “the mental status exams had shown no deficits in [Plaintiff’s] memory or fund of
knowledge. However, review of the two pages cited shows no mental status exam, no memory
testing, and information that brings into question his statement concerning no deficit in fund of
knowledge.” (Id. at PageID 892.) True, in the relevant section of his decision, ALJ Schwalbach
cites to exhibit number “B2F/14–15,” which is a cognitive evaluation report conducted at Darke
County Educational Service Center, not the mental status exam ALJ Schwalbach addresses
substantively. (See Doc. No. 8-2 at PageID 65 (citing Doc. No. 8-8 at PageID 626–27).) However,
Case: 3:25-cv-00078-TMR-PBS Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/02/26 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
the contents of the same section of ALJ Schwalbach’s decision make it abundantly clear that this
was a mere citation error. In the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of his step five analysis, ALJ
Schwalbach concludes that “[Plaintiff’s] mental status exams have shown no deficits in his
memory or fund of knowledge[,]” a conclusion he arrived at by reviewing WAIS-IV cognitive
tests performed in 2013 and 2021. (Doc. No. 8-2 at PageID 65–66.) Contrary to Plaintiff’s
contention, those exams were indeed performed, and ALJ Schwalbach relied on those exams, but
he simply cited to the incorrect medical record in his decision. (See Doc. Nos. 8-11 at PageID 822–
23 (2013 WAIS-IV exam results); 8-8 at PageID 667–73 (2021 WAIS-IV exam results).)2 Stated
differently, based on his review of the mental status exams performed in 2013 and 2021, ALJ
Schwalbach concluded Plaintiff’s results showed no deficits in memory or fund of knowledge,
even if he inadvertently cited to the incorrect medical records. (Doc. No. 8-2 at PageID 65–66.)
That ALJ Schwalbach cited to medical records which do not support his conclusions does not, in
itself, invalidate his opinion, so long as his findings are nevertheless supported by substantial
evidence. See Newman v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 5:22-CV-01982, 2023 WL 7092886, at *12
(N.D. Ohio Sept. 20, 2023), R. & R. adopted, 2023 WL 7048737 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 26, 2023). The
Court is of the opinion that such is the case here.
For his second argument, Plaintiff essentially reiterates a position asserted in his Statement
of Errors. (Doc. No. 18 at PageID 891–92.) Plaintiff takes issue with ALJ Schwalbach’s symptom
evaluation conducted pursuant to SSR 16-3p. (Id.) More specifically, Plaintiff maintains that ALJ
Schwalbach was selective in his inclusion of certain portions of the record in his symptom
2 As explained in greater detail in Magistrate Judge Silvain’s Report, ALJ Schwalbach also incorrectly states,
“[Plaintiff’s] Verbal Comprehension score was 89” when referring to Plaintiff’s WAIS-IV 2021 exam results. (Doc.
No. 8-2 at PageID 66.) However, a review of Plaintiff’s 2021 exam results shows Plaintiff’s verbal comprehension
score was, in fact, 78. (Doc. No. 8-8 at PageID 673.) Because ALJ Schwalbach correctly represents Plaintiff’s results
in the succeeding paragraphs of his decision, the Court does not find this clerical error to be grounds for reversal.
Case: 3:25-cv-00078-TMR-PBS Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/02/26 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
evaluation. However, as aptly explained in the Report, “[w]hile Plaintiff is correct that [ALJ
Schwalbach] does not specifically mention the SSR 16-3p and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) factors,
a review of his decision demonstrates that he did consider the factors that were relevant to
Plaintiff’s case.” (Doc. No. 17 at PageID 885.) The Court here agrees with Magistrate Judge
Silvain. “The ALJ need not analyze all seven factors, only those germane to the alleged
symptoms.” Thornton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:25-CV-00712, 2025 WL 4088083, at *10
(N.D. Ohio Nov. 25, 2025), R. & R. adopted, 2026 WL 228726 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 28, 2026); see
also Hall v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:19-CV-1727, 2020 WL 6778012, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Nov.
18, 2020) (“[The plaintiff] argues the ALJ provided evidence that doesn’t paint the entire picture.
But courts must affirm the Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, even
if substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion.”). And as delineated comprehensively in
the Report, ALJ Schwalbach analyzed all factors germane to Plaintiff’s condition in reaching his
symptom evaluation conclusions. (See Doc. No. 17 at PageID 885–86.)
Ultimately, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Silvain’s findings in this case, and
Plaintiff’s Objection is not well-taken. Moreover, the Court finds that the SSA’s final decision
regarding Plaintiff’s applications for CDB and DIB is founded in relevant evidence such that a
reasonable mind could accept the decision as adequately supported.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. No. 18) is OVERRULED. The Court ACCEPTS the findings and recommendations made
by Magistrate Judge Silvain, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 17), and rules
as follows:
1. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED; and
2. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE this case on the Court’s docket.
Case: 3:25-cv-00078-TMR-PBS Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/02/26 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Monday, March 2, 2026.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 3:25-cv-00078-TMR-PBS Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/02/26 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>