UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

RAY ANTHONY MALONE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 2:11-cv-319 

Judge Michael H. Watson 

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court for consideration of the May 30, 2012 

Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 27.) The 

Magistrate Judge specifically recommended that the Court affirm the decision of 

the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner''). Plaintiff, who is 

proceeding pro se, filed what the Court construes to be Objections to the Report 

and Recommendation. (ECF No. 29.) For the following reasons, Plaintiffs 

Objections are OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation is 

ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00319-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 04/03/13 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Plaintiff filed an application for social security disability insurance benefits 

alleging disability since December 1, 2004. The medical record reflects that 

Plaintiff suffers from a variety of impairments including diabetes, hypertension, 

and chronic pain. 1 On July 21, 2009, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") issued 

a decision, which ultimately became the Commissioner's final decision, finding 

that Plaintiff was not disabled during the relevant period. The ALJ specifically 

determined that, from Plaintiff's alleged onset date to his last date insured, June 

30, 2006, Plaintiff was capable of performing a significant number of jobs in the 

national economy. 

The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court affirm the 

Commissioner's decision. The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ correctly 

' calculated Plaintiff's date last insured and appropriately excluded evidence 

relating to Plaintiff's July 2008 motorcycle accident from his consideration. 

Additionally, the Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ did not err in relying on 

vocational expert testimony; that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's 

residual functional capacity ("RFC") and credibility determinations; and that the 

ALJ acted within his discretion in failing to seek additional evidence. Finally, the 

Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff failed to provide a sufficient basis for a 

sentence six remand, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for consideration of new 

evidence. 

1 The Report and Recommendation provides a detailed overview of the relevant medical records 

and the administrative hearing testimony. (Report & Recommendation 2-7, ECF No. 27.) 

Page 2 of 5 

Case: 2:11-cv-00319-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 04/03/13 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Plaintiff's Objections are difficult to decipher. He fails to offer specific 

challenges to the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. To the extent 

Plaintiff offers discernable substantive objections, he appears to revisit a number 

of the matters he discussed in his initial briefing. For example, Plaintiff appears 

to contend, in generally conclusory fashion, that the ALJ should have considered 

evidence relating to his 2008 motorcycle accident. 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff Objections de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b ). The Court adopts both the determination and reasoning of the Report 

and Recommendation. Specifically, based on the reasoning and authority within 

the Report and Recommendation, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge 

that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision and that the ALJ did not err 

in reaching his decision. 

The Court finds only a few additional comments necessary. Specifically, 

the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determination that ALJ considered 

the appropriate time period. Plaintiff's earning records reflect that his date last 

insured was June 30, 2006. (R. at 129-30.) Furthermore, the record reflects 

Plaintiff was informed of the date he was last eligible for benefits on multiple 

occasions throughout the administrative process. (SeeR. at 13-18, 73, 77.) 

Plaintiff's Objections also evidence a misunderstanding of certain findings 

within the administrative decision. Contrary to the suggestion within Plaintiff's 

briefing, the ALJ's credibility finding did not attack Plaintiff's overall character. 

Page 3 of 5 

Case: 2:11-cv-00319-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 04/03/13 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Rather, the ALJ appears to have credited much of Plaintiffs testimony in 

evaluating his functional capacity. The ALJ reached only a limited conclusion that 

Plaintiffs hearing testimony was not entirely credible to the extent it was 

inconsistent with the ALJ's functional capacity findings. For the reasons 

described within the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that 

substantial evidence supports the ALJ's credibility and RFC determinations. 

Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff implies that the ALJ found him capable of his 

past work, he is incorrect. The ALJ explicitly found that Plaintiff was unable to 

perform his past work. (R. at 68.) Based on the vocational expert testimony, 

however, the ALJ found Plaintiff capable of performing other jobs in significant 

numbers. (R. at 68-69.) 

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff continues to attempt to offer new evidence 

outside the administrative record, the Court finds no grounds for a sentence six 

remand pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Here, at the very least, Plaintiff has 

failed to show good cause why he was unable to produce any of the additional 

evidence at an earlier date. See Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 357 (6th Cir. 

2001) ("A claimant shows 'good cause' by demonstrating a reasonable 

justification for the failure to acquire and present the evidence for inclusion in the 

hearing before the ALJ."). 

Page 4 of 5 

Case: 2:11-cv-00319-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 04/03/13 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Accordingly, based on the above, as well as the reasoning within the 

Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's Objections are OVERRULED and the 

Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner 

is AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Page 5 of 5 

Case: 2:11-cv-00319-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 04/03/13 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>