UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

LORA B. MARRERO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cv-198

Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

DECISION AND ENTRY

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 19) 

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 June 19, 2019, submitted a 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the non-disability finding by 

the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) be affirmed. (Doc. 19). Plaintiff filed objections 

(Doc. 22) and the Commissioner filed a response in support of the R&R (Doc. 24).

Having conducted a de novo review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are 

not well-taken.1 

 

1 Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R largely reassert the errors previously identified with regard to 

the ALJ’s decision. “A party’s objections are not sufficiently specific if they merely restate the 

claims made in the initial petition, ‘disput[e] the correctness’ of a report and recommendation 

without specifying the findings purportedly in error, or simply ‘object[ ] to the report and 

recommendation and refer[ ] to several of the issues in the case.’” Bradley v. United States, No. 

18-1444, 2018 WL 5084806, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 17, 2018) (quoting Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 

373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995)). Regardless, this Court will conduct a de novo review and give full 

consideration to the objections raised. 
2

Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge failed to adequately consider evidence of 

Plaintiff’s disability and, instead, relied upon information dating prior to Plaintiff’s 

alleged onset date. As an initial matter, the Court disagrees and notes that the Magistrate 

Judge’s citation to records from earlier appointments does not undermine the thorough 

and appropriate consideration given to the entirety of Plaintiff’s medical history, 

beginning from the date of alleged disability (November 2014). Moreover, the Court’s 

own independent review of the record, beginning from November 2014 onward, 

evidences ample support for the ALJ’s non-disability determination. In comparison, the 

instances Plaintiff references in her objections, as well as other similar evidence in the 

record, is sparse and often offset by context (e.g., situational triggers or changes in 

medication).2 

Plaintiff further argues that the Magistrate Judge, like the ALJ, relied solely on

evidence of Plaintiff’s “good days” to affirm a non-disability finding, while failing to 

consider that “the objective record proves that Plaintiff had as many bad days as 

good....” (Doc. 22 at 3). Again, the Court disagrees. As previously noted, this Court’s 

independent review of the record indicates substantial evidence in support of the ALJ’s 

non-disability determination. Plaintiff’s daily activities, as well as her responsiveness 

 

2 The Court’s review includes Plaintiff’s newly-provided citation to information in the 

voluminous record, which information the Magistrate Judge was unable to consider given 

Plaintiff’s failure to include said citation in the Statement of Errors. The Court further notes that, 

even in the context of the objections, Plaintiff’s citations required considerable time to locate, as 

they reference the variable page numbers rather than the continuous PageID or bates numbering 

(i.e., Plaintiff’s citation to Tr. 330 is in fact Tr. 587, PageID # 621). To be clear, the Court’s 

observations in this regard do not influence its consideration of Plaintiff’s case, but serve only as 

clarification for the record and are intended to be responsive to Plaintiff’s objection. (See Doc. 

22 at 2).
3

and progress with medication and therapy, are thoroughly documented in the medical 

records. And while the record also evidences Plaintiff’s psychiatric diagnosis (which was 

considered by the ALJ and the Magistrate Judge), there is limited objective evidence to 

corroborate the severity of the resulting symptoms and impairment as Plaintiff alleges. 

Moreover, while there are consistent notes regarding Plaintiff’s difficulties with coping 

and communication skills, there is no reference to these difficulties causing the severe 

impairment that Plaintiff asserts.

In short, Plaintiff’s continuing assertions that the record is replete with substantial 

evidence of her disability and that the ALJ failed to consider said evidence, is simply not 

borne by the record. 

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 case. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds that the 

Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety. 

Accordingly: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is ADOPTED; 

2. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED, as the decision is supported 

by substantial evidence; and

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is 

TERMINATED on the docket of this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 9/3/2019 s/ Timothy S. Black

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge