UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

JUDY M. MOSLEY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 Case No. 1:17-cv-183

 Judge Timothy S. Black

 Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

DECISION AND ENTRY 

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 13) AND

TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT 

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate 

Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on July 31, 2018, submitted a 

Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff filed objections on August 7, 2018. 

(Doc. 14).

After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s objections, and the 

case record, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are not well-taken. Plaintiff raises 

four objections

First, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge and ALJ erred by not awarding her 

a closed period of disability based on peripheral artery disease. The Court agrees with 

the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff fails to establish she was disabled from July 2013 
2

through July 2014. Plaintiff has failed to point to any evidence that she was limited to 

sedentary work during the relevant time period and the physicians who assessed

Plaintiff’s functional abilities support the ALJ and Magistrate Judge’s finding. 

Second, Plaintiff makes a wide array of objections to the weight afforded to the 

opinions of psychologists and doctors in the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 14 at 

5–10). These objections are without merit. As lengthily discussed in the Report and 

Recommendation, the ALJ provided good reasons for the amount of weight afforded to 

the opinions of psychologists and doctors and those reasons are substantially supported 

by the evidence of record. (Doc. 13 at 13–22).

Third, Plaintiff states that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that it was not 

improper for the ALJ to ask hypothetical questions to the vocational expert. Again, the 

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that “[b]ecause the ALJ appropriately 

weighed the opinions of Drs. Twehues and Fritzhand, the ALJ’s hypothetical questions to 

the [vocational expert], which incorporated all of the functional limitations that the ALJ 

found to be credible, were sufficient to convey plaintiff’s limitations.” (Doc. 13 at 29).

Fourth, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ and Magistrate Judge erred in the evaluation 

of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and credibility. However, as the Report and 

Recommendation discusses, the ALJ provided several substantiated reasons for the 

conclusion that Plaintiff’s testimony was not entirely credible. (Doc. 24 at 25–28). The 

Court finds that the Magistrate Judge properly gave deference to the ALJ because the 

ALJ’s credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence. 
3

 As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo 

all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does 

determine that the Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED in 

its entirety. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:

1) The Commissioner’s decision to deny Plaintiff disability insurance benefits 

and supplemental social security income is AFFIRMED, as that decision is 

supported by substantial evidence;

2) The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is 

TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge

9/18/18