IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MIRANDA S. OSBORNE, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. Case No.: 2:17-cv-938

JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH

Magistrate Judge Jolson

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 

Defendant. 

 

ORDER

This case is before the Court to consider the Report and Recommendation issued by the

Magistrate Judge on July 24, 2018. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s

Statement of Errors be overruled and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security be

affirmed. (See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 14). This matter is now before the Court on

Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 15). The

Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

Plaintiff raises two main objections to the ALJ and Magistrate Judge’s findings: 1) the

ALJ failed to properly weigh the medical opinion evidence; and 2) the ALJ failed to properly

evaluate Ms. Osborne’s testimony. However, these objections present, once again, the issued

presented to and carefully considered by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and

Recommendation. 

Plaintiff has not presented any new evidence or argument other than what was previously

presented in her Statement of Errors. Plaintiff merely disagrees with the ALJ and Magistrate
Judge’s conclusions. Specifically with respect to weighing the medical evidence, the Magistrate

Judge noted, and the Court agrees, that “it is the job of the ALJ, not Plaintiff, to determine how

much value and weight to assign certain medical opinions.” (Doc. 14, Report and

Recommendation at 18). Further, with respect to Ms. Osborne’s testimony, Plaintiff argues that

the ALJ’s evaluation is not supported by substantial evidence. The Court disagrees. The

evidence is set forth in detail in the ALJ’s decision and the Report and Recommendation. 

Further, the Sixth Circuit has held that courts must accord great deference to an ALJ’s

‘credibility’ assessment “because of the ALJ’s unique opportunity to observe the claimant and

judge [his] subjective complaints.” Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 462, 773 (6th Cir. 2001). 

The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s objections, but finds that the decision of

the ALJ was supported by substantial evidence as acknowledged in detail in the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the well-reasoned

Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit.

Based on the aforementioned and the detailed Report and Recommendation, the Court

finds that Plaintiff’s objections have been thoroughly considered and are hereby OVERRULED. 

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation, Document 14, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. 

Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors is hereby OVERRULED, and the decision of the Commissioner

of Social Security is AFFIRMED.

-2-
The Clerk shall remove Documents 14 and 15 from the Court’s pending motions list, and

enter final judgment in favor of Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ George C. Smith 

 GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-3-