IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MARSHA M. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No.: 2:l8-cv-288

JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH

Magistrate Judge Jolson

ORDER

/

This case is before the Court toconsider the Report andRecommendation issued by the

Magistrate Judge on December 4, 2018. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiffs

Statement ofErrors be overruled and the decision ofthe Commissioner ofSocial Security be

affirmed. (See Report andRecommendation, Doc. 13). This matter is now before the Court on

Plaintiffs Objections tothe Magistrate Judge's Report andRecommendation. (Doc. 14). The

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

Plaintiffraises one main objection to the ALJ and Magistrate Judge's findings: that the

ALJ failed to account for all ofthe limitations opined by the State agency psychologists.

Specifically, Plaintiffargues that the ALJ failed to explain how she reached her conclusions and

the Magistrate Judge attempted to connect the dots that ALJ failed to. by explaining how each

state agency opinion limitation was accounted for by the limitations included in the mental

residual functional capacity ("RFC").
Plaintiffs objection presents the same issue already presented to, and carefully

considered by, the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffhas not

presented anynew evidence or argument otherthan what was previously presented in his

Statement of Errors. Plaintiffmerely disagrees with theALJ and Magistrate Judge'sconclusions,

specifically with respect to weight of theopinions of the state agency psychologists. As the

Magistrate Judge correctly recognized, "ALJs are not bound by findings made by State agency or

other program physicians and psychologists, but they may not ignore these opinions and must

explain the weight given tothe opinions in their decisions." (Doc. 13 at 11, citing SSR 96-6P.

1996 WL 374180, at *2 (S.S.A. July 2, 1996). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's

conclusions regarding the ALJ's RFC assessment. The ALJ provided sufficient reasoning for her

RFC assessment.

The Court has carefully considered Plaintiffs objection, but finds that the decision ofthe

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 Plaintiffs objection iswithout merit.

Based onthe aforementioned and the detailed Report andRecommendation, the Court

finds that Plaintiffs objection has been thoroughly considered and is hereby OVERRULED.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation. Document 13, isADOPTED and AFFIRMED,

Plaintiffs Statement ofErrors ishereby OVERRULED, and the decision ofthe Commissioner

of Social Security is AFFIRMED.

-2-
TheClerk shall remove Documents 13 and 14 from the Court'spending motions list, and

enterfinal judgmentin favor of Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/$/ Georee C. Smith

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT