IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

LISA A. LEHMAN,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action 2:11-cv-488

v. Judge Peter C. Economus

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 

Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff, Lisa A. Lehman, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3)

for review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying

her application for social security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security

income. This matter is before the August 17, 2012 Report and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 14) and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 15). For the reasons that follow, the Court OVERRULES

Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, and AFFIRMS the

Commissioner’s finding of nondisability.

I. 

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.

Case: 2:11-cv-00488-PCE-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 09/13/12 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
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 . . . .”). Put another way, a decision supported by substantial evidence is not subject

to reversal, even if the reviewing court might arrive at a different conclusion. Mullen v. Bowen,

800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986). “Substantial evidence exists when ‘a reasonable mind could

accept the evidence as adequate to support a conclusion [and] . . . presupposes that there is a

zone of choice within which the decision-makers can go either way, without interference by the

courts.’” Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (internal; citation

omitted). Even if supported by substantial evidence, however, “‘a decision of the Commissioner

will not be upheld where the [Commissioner] fails to follow its own regulations and where that

error prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant of a substantial right.’”

Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bowen v. Comm’r of

Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 746 (6th Cir. 2007)).

II. 

The Court has conducted a de novo review and agrees with the reasoning and analysis of

the Magistrate Judge. In her Objections, Plaintiff merely submits the same arguments as she did

in her Statement of Errors. Specifically, she again advances the following three arguments in

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00488-PCE-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 09/13/12 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
support of reversal: (1) the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in his consideration and

treatment of Plaintiff’s treating and examining sources; (2) the ALJ failed to provide a proper

hypothetical to the vocational expert; and (3) the ALJ incorrectly assessed her credibility. The

Magistrate Judge considered and fully analyzed each of these arguments in her Report and

Recommendation. 

With regard to each assertion of error, the Court finds Plaintiff’s objections unpersuasive,

as they track the contentions within her Statement of Error and do not attempt to engage the

Magistrate Judge’s analysis. See 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). Plaintiff offers no

authority in her Objections that undermines the Magistrate Judge’s determination with regard to

any issue. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations concerning

Plaintiff’s assertions of error, and therefore, finds Plaintiff’s Objections to be without merit. 

III. 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF

No. 15), ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14), and AFFIRMS the

Commissioner’s decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Peter C. Economus 

PETER C. ECONOMUS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case: 2:11-cv-00488-PCE-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 09/13/12 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>