UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

THOMAS M. DIXON, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 2:17-cv-778 

Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff, Thomas Dixon (“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 his 

application for social security disability insurance benefits. This matter is before the Court on 

Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors (ECF No. 20), the Commissioner’s Memorandum in Opposition 

(ECF No. 21), and the administrative record (ECF Nos. 18–19). For the reasons that follow, it is 

RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors be OVERRULED and that the 

Commissioner’s decision be AFFIRMED. 

Plaintiff raises four issues in his Statement of Errors (ECF No. 20). However, beyond a 

brief listing of these issues, Plaintiff does not otherwise provide the Court with any facts, law, or 

argument in support of his claim. The entirety of Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors, submitted by 

Plaintiff’s counsel, reads as follows: 
2 

STATEMENT OF ERRORS 

(1) Inadequate assistance of counsel. The Administrative Law Judge 

admonished former counsel related to his lack of preparation and 

presentation. Further, former counsel failed to prepare claimant and only 

briefly met with claimant at the beginning of his representation and ever so 

briefly prior to each hearing. 

(2) Evidence in the record. The Administrative Law Judge failed to consider 

and evaluate Dr. Aguilar’s progress notes and overall arbitrarily chose to 

ignore the medical evidence as it would relate to claimant’s disability. 

(3) The Administrative Law Judge made its own determination outside of the 

record, unsupported by the evidence reported and without factual 

substantiation. 

(4) Claimant, at a minimum, has been disabled for a recognized closed period 

based upon the records in evidence. Further, beyond the closed period, 

claimant is disabled per the listings as a result of disk degeneration, spinal 

stenosis, sciatica, limitations on activities of daily living, depression, 

anxiety, and history of a gunshot wound. All of these medically determined 

issues, singularly or in combination, establish claimant’s disability. 

(Statement of Errors at 1–2, ECF No. 20.) 

Plaintiff’s conclusory statement of the issues is not sufficient for the Court to 

meaningfully evaluate his claims. Plaintiff has not explained, e.g., which medical evidence the 

ALJ “overall arbitrarily chose to ignore,” on what evidence outside the record the ALJ relied, or 

for which “closed period” Plaintiff was disabled. As a result, Plaintiff’s claims fail. See

McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 996-96 (6th Cir. 1997) (“[I]ssues adverted to in a 

perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed 

waived. It is not sufficient for a party to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, 

leaving the court to . . . put flesh on its bones.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); 

Hollon v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 447 F.3d 477, 490-91 (6th Cir. 2006) (“This challenge warrants 

little discussion, as Hollon has made little effort to develop this argument in her brief on appeal, 
3 

or to identify any specific aspects of the Commissioner’s determination that lack support in the 

record.”). 

Moreover, as to Plaintiff’s assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel, numerous courts 

have held that social security claimants have no constitutional right to counsel at social security 

proceedings. E.g., Spencer v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:13CV454, 2014 WL 4351418, at *4 

(S.D. Ohio Sept. 2, 2014); Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:12CV2042, 2013 WL 2551951, 

at *19 (N.D. Ohio June 7, 2013). Accordingly, this asserted error has no merit. 

For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court OVERRULE 

Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors and AFFIRM the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision. 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS 

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen 

(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those 

specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with 

supporting authority for the objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo 

determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations 

to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or 

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further 

evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report 

and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of 

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 
4 

/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura 

CHELSEY M. VASCURA 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE