Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DALLAS B.,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
:
:
Case No. 2:25-cv-19
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Karen L.
Litkovitz
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 period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and
supplemental security income. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed her Statement of Errors
on May 30, 2025. (ECF No. 12.) The Commissioner filed a Memorandum in
Opposition (ECF No. 13) to which Plaintiff replied (ECF No. 14). On November 7,
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. 15.) Plaintiff timely filed her Objection
to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 16.)
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
Case: 2:25-cv-00019-SDM-KLL Doc #: 18 Filed: 12/22/25 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
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, 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. 16),
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15), 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-00019-SDM-KLL Doc #: 18 Filed: 12/22/25 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>